Question for Roman Catholic priests encouraging Rosary prayers condemned by Christ

[Jude3b]

Dear Roman Catholics Priests: The rosary represents a form of prayer that was expressly condemned by Christ, for He said: "And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him" (Matt. 6:7-8)

Yet the Roman Catholic priests encourage their people to use the rosary frequently, and in giving penances after confession they often assign a certain number of Hail Marys to be said.

Roman Catholic priests, Why do you teach that?

[Jude3b]

Many define a cult as any religious group that has as authority something added to the Bible. Revelation 22:18,19 pronounces the curse of God on any one who adds to the Word of God and the same to those who take away from the Word of God. We often talk about JW's, Mormons, etc. being cults. But doesn't Roman Catholicism do the same as them in adding to or taking away from the Word of God??? Isn't it thereby a false cult?
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

First by definition ALL religions are cults, just look it up in the dictionary chief.

Secondly, yes the Catholic Bible has extra books. But they were not just pulled out of a hat yesterday. They are just as old as the Bible. How the Mormons added their extra books and how Catholicism did are very different stories.

As a side note Wisdom is a beautiful book, my favorite in fact, maybe you should take the time to read it.

[spl_cadet]

And as a sidenote, that bit in Revelation refers only to the book Revelation. The Bible is a collection of books, not a book itself.

[Minnesota]

Many define a cult as any religious group that has as authority something added to the Bible.

What a very strange and self-serving definition. What kind of people are you reading, or running with these days?

[Jude3b]

Dear Spl: I've read the book of Wisdom and frankly I prefer books of the Bible instead - such as the real book of wisdom - the Proverbs! Don't forget I was steeped in the false teachings of Romanism for many, many years, just as you still are Spl!
Sincerely, Jude3b

[HRG_new]

Many define a cult as any religious group that has as authority something added to the Bible. Revelation 22:18,19 pronounces the curse of God on any one who adds to the Word of God and the same to those who take away from the Word of God. We often talk about JW's, Mormons, etc. being cults. But doesn't Roman Catholicism do the same as them in adding to or taking away from the Word of God??? Isn't it thereby a false cult?
Sincerely, Jude 3b

"Religion - heresy - cult" are just examples of irregular declension, like "go-went-gone", or "mouse - mice":

My religion
Your heresy
His cult

:P

Regards,
HRG

[rocketman]

I don't know, Jude, WIsdom 2:12-20 is really cool when you consider the Pharisees...what say you?

[Twilly Spree]

From Merriam Webster online a cult is:

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Just a little help.

[bar Jonah]

One should be careful about using a secular resource in defining terms that are involved in communicating the Christian view and Christian theology.

Nevertheless, on a practical level a "cult" generally refers to groups that brainwash its members and take over their lives, usually separating members from their families and friends. For example, the Local Church and the International or Boston Church of Christ aren't extremely off when it comes to doctrine. (Note: the latter's sister group, the Churches of Christ, is not a cult). They don't deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity, etc. But they control their members psychologically and take over their lives, even to the point that a member has to have permission from his "covering" or discipler (his spiritual supervisor) as to what job he may apply for, and the woman he asks out on a date. They emotionally punish anyone who shows much individuality, and encourage people to break ties with most or all other interests, such as political organizations and other clubs and associations and orgs. For example, in the Int'l/Boston Church of Christ, if you are late for church, you must have unrepentant sin in your life. Have a cold? Unrepentant sin. Car trouble? Guess what...? And you must confess that unrepentant sin. Some members get so desperate that they start just making up sins to confess, just so they can relieve the pressure to figure out what they must have done wrong.

In fact, just to show it's not particularly about doctrine... there are secular cults. Financial cults, for example, like some groups that operate under the Quixtar umbrella. I lost a close friend to Quixtar a couple years ago, as I watched her slowly get cut off from anyone in her life who wasn't just as motivated as she was to "make a million dollars." She was told she just shouldn't waste her time being with anyone who doesn't have that much material ambition. This was a wonderful Christian friend of mine. She became rapidly obsessed with the idea that she would become a "diamond" in only one year, and would have a future in "paradise" -- a tropical island vacation that diamonds can go to as a reward for their high level of success! Even though I repeatedly said I didn't want to become involved in Quixtar, she constantly pressured me to come to presentations and consider it. Looking back later after she cut herself off completely, I realized that as my friend, she hadn't wanted to have to cut me off, and that's why she wanted so badly for me to join. (Don't get me wrong, Quixtar isn't always cultic, but many people and many groups of people within it, are. I've seen it, myself.)

Even still, it's true that as an overall pattern, most pseudo-Christian cults deny two things: the deity of Christ, and the true gospel of grace, of salvation through faith and not of works. But this isn't really what defines them as a cult.

[spl_cadet]

Dear Spl: I've read the book of Wisdom and frankly I prefer books of the Bible instead - such as the real book of wisdom - the Proverbs!

I prefer Ecclesiasticus/Sirach myself.


Don't forget I was steeped in the false teachings of Romanism for many, many years, just as you still are Spl!
Sincerely, Jude3b

If you were in the false teachings, then how come you can't describe them correctly?

[bar Jonah]

No way is the Catholic Church a cult. It's no secret I have significant difference with many of their doctrines, but I think it is absurd to refer to them as a cult, in light of what I described above.

[Ryan Dallion]

"For example, the Local Church and the International or Boston Church of Christ aren't extremely off when it comes to doctrine. (Note: the latter's sister group, the Churches of Christ, is not a cult). They don't deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity, etc."

:offtopic:really?I thought the Local Church movement's veiw of the Godhead was closer to modalism.

[bar Jonah]

"For example, the Local Church and the International or Boston Church of Christ aren't extremely off when it comes to doctrine. (Note: the latter's sister group, the Churches of Christ, is not a cult). They don't deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity, etc."

:offtopic:really?I thought the Local Church movement's veiw of the Godhead was closer to modalism.
You know what, you might be right. Can you check and confirm that for us? I would agree that non-Trinitarianism is heretical, although it doesn't quite mean that such a person isn't saved, as I don't believe a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. Deity of Christ, yes... but I don't believe modalism precludes being saved.

But please let us know about the Local Church, if you can look it up. I may have forgotten about that.

Thanks for the head's up, Ivo!

[Ryan Dallion]

Okay,here's what I've benn able to find out so far,according to an entry on the Watchman Fellowship's index of cults and religions here http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Local" "Some evangelicals have also charged that the church compromises the Trinity doctrine by confusing the Persons of the Holy Spirit and the Son in a way similar to modalism."(the Watchman Fellowship is an Evangelical discernment organization)But according to this article here http://www.rickross.com/reference/local/local2.html the Local Church claimes to affirm the Trinity.However even though they deny teaching classical modalism I'm not convinced that they don't hold to some other form of modalism.I'm somewhat unclear however from what little I've read it seems that they are charged with holding a veiw of the Godhead that while not pure modalism is closer to modalism than Classical Trinitarianism.

[Ric]

Many define a cult as any religious group that has as authority something added to the Bible. Revelation 22:18,19 pronounces the curse of God on any one who adds to the Word of God and the same to those who take away from the Word of God. We often talk about JW's, Mormons, etc. being cults. But doesn't Roman Catholicism do the same as them in adding to or taking away from the Word of God??? Isn't it thereby a false cult?
Sincerely, Jude 3b
This chart from http://www.carm.org/catholic/grid.htm shows a lot of truth to your statement.

[John Reece]

This chart from http://www.carm.org/catholic/grid.htm shows a lot of truth to your statement.

The chart presents "Catholicism" and "Christianity" as mutually exclusive. Would it not be more accurate to head the last column "Protestantism"?

[bar Jonah]

The chart presents "Catholicism" and "Christianity" as mutually exclusive. Would it not be more accurate to head the last column "Protestantism"?
No.

There are rare members of Mormonism and the Watchtower who confess and believe that Jesus is their Lord and that He rose from the dead, and they will be saved. They aren't good Mormons or JWs, but it can rarely happen. By the same token, a Catholic can be saved (and much more likely than a Mormon or JW, to boot), but will often be a poor Catholic.

This chart isn't about individuals, but about the belief systems themselves. I agree with Ric, wholeheartedly.

[Stephen]

Whether or not they're saved wouldn't change that they are a belief based upon the teachings and death of Christ, hence the term Christian. IMO

[bar Jonah]

Whether or not they're saved wouldn't change that they are a belief based upon the teachings and death of Christ, hence the term Christian. IMO
Except that they are built on the teachings of a corrupt, man-made political system, taking only parts of the Bible, and adding things to the Bible. That is not Christianity.

[spl_cadet]

There's also the problem that the chart is rather inaccurate in regards to Catholic belief. I've written refutations of several of Matt Slick's papers, and he refuses to address them.

[Twilly Spree]

RightIdea, I would say that to a certain extent ALL religions/cults are man-made.

[Jude3b]

Dear Ric: Thank you for the chart. It does seem to state the case that Romanism is a Cult and an apostate church. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Dear SpL: I've quoted the Catechism throughout our discussions for my main source on Roman Catholic doctrine. I cannot help it if you do not agree with the Catechism, no less the Word of God.

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

That chart is completely biased material. I actually laughed while reading it. Examples, in the Catholic Bible there IS a source for Purgatory. And the church no longer uses the practice of indulgences. Denounced as part of a Vatican council I believe.

Jude, you seem only take out parts of the Catechism. You can twist things very easily by only including parts of statements. Where are you getting the quotes anyway?

[NoeticPenguin]

That grid is based upon a biased, prostestant mindset, and as such it derides and assails the RCC needlessly and without factual basis.

The chart specifically denies the teaching of the RCC, which is not meant to be taken in snippets from the Catechism, but rather as a whole teaching. To rip things out of context from the RCC Catechism is akin to ripping out the words of Christ and ignoring their context --Something us protestants are wont to do whenever it suits our desires-- To use that chart as "proof of apostasy" is to also ignore evidence that is very much right before our eyes. To say that the "Christian" church has "Treasures in heaven" is to ignore the Mega Church movement and the likes of Southeast Christian Church, Saddleback, and Willow Creek --all major sources of american constantian heresy--.

To even compare "Christianity" to the RCC is to willfully ignore the statements and beliefs of the RCC; statements that identify them as Christians.

Furthermore information regarding to "non-biblical teachings" is out of date, and flat out wrong. The method of Salvation information is equally flat out wrong, for the RCC teaches that Salvation is in the Church, AKA the Kingdom of God, something at is freely given as grace through faith; and is known to all by the works of faith.

As for the "Images of God used in worship / churches etc" I defy you to find me one protestant church in North America without a Thomas Kinkaide-esque portrait of the white Jesus.

I am sick, and tired of Protestants who feel they must live up to their name and protest the Roman Catholic Church. If you disagree with their theology thats fine, but don't shoot the percieved wounded! Show them the wisdom and truth of your theology with your love, and service. Apologetics that wail and whine against the RCC are a civil war inside the Kingdom of God that boils down to us forgetting that we owe our sole allegiance to Jesus and the Kingdom of God! Not to our individual protestant / RCC ideologies. Put aside the hate, and the desire to "save the Catholics" because qute frankly it only continues a war that you will not win, a battle which you cannot hope to end except through love and peace. I beg of you Jude 3b in light of the love of Christ to put aside these derisive and hateful questions and commentaries on the RCC. Instead find joy in the knowledge that despite the civil wars amoungst the citizens of the Kingdom of God; God works through us for the good of his People!

-Pkj.

[Jude3b]

Dear Twilly Spree: In almost everything that I have answered or addressed where I have quoted the Catechism, I have provided the page number and reference number of the quote. Example- "Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." (The Catechism Pg. 222, #837). To be saved, one must also perform works like baptism (Page 320, #1257, plus various sacraments (Page 292, #1129) and many additional works. The Catechism Twilly actually opposes God's Word, which states that salvation cannot be earned, it is a free and undeserved gift of God: "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." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). Twilly Spree, Which will you beleive Rome or God???

Indulgences: You say Rome has done away with them. Doesn't that strike you as odd, that a group that claims "infallible men" speak for God - says we need Indulgences in some centuries, but not anymore. Here is what the Roman Catholic church has said about indulgences in part: "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory." (The Catechism Pg. 374, #1498)
The Bible states: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;" (I Cor. 15:3). Twilly Spree, Which will you believe Rome or God???

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[NoeticPenguin]

Dear Twilly Spree: In almost everything that I have answered or addressed where I have quoted the Catechism, I have provided the page number and reference number of the quote. Example- "Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." (The Catechism Pg. 222, #837). To be saved, one must also perform works like baptism (Page 320, #1257, plus various sacraments (Page 292, #1129) and many additional works.

Actually, your ripping quotes from the Catechism out of context, and without knowledge of what things like "charity" (which is previously defined in the Catechism) actually mean when used in that context.

One does not "perform" baptism upon oneself, but rather is given baptism by a priest. No works are required for salvation in the RCC church. How many times must people tell you this information for you to believe it?


The Catechism Twilly actually opposes God's Word, which states that salvation cannot be earned, it is a free and undeserved gift of God: "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." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). Twilly Spree, Which will you beleive Rome or God???

One doesn't have to choose because Rome and God agree. (Even as one who grew up protestant; chosen for myself the mennonite faith; and one who struggles with finding his place in the Church, I see that Rome and God are not at odds with each other on this issue!)


Indulgences: You say Rome has done away with them. Doesn't that strike you as odd, that a group that claims "infallible men" speak for God - says we need Indulgences in some centuries, but not anymore. Here is what the Roman Catholic church has said about indulgences in part: "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory." (The Catechism Pg. 374, #1498)

The pope is only infalable when he is speaking ex-cathedra. To my knowledge the only time papal infalabiilty has been put to use was in the ex-cathedra statement regarding the nature of Mary's Immaculate Conception (the doctrine stating that mary was born free from the burden of original sin)

Papal infalibility was long the tradition, but it wasn't until recently that it was codified and an official doctrine. As such statements made regarding indulgences before the doctrine of papal infalability do not carry the "infalable" mark.

-Pkj

[Twilly Spree]

Jude please listen to what Penguin has said. He has spoken with a great amount of conviction. Also please stop trying to "save me" I'm just fine where I am thanks.

[Ric]

The chart presents "Catholicism" and "Christianity" as mutually exclusive. Would it not be more accurate to head the last column "Protestantism"?
No. :nono:

[Ric]

There's also the problem that the chart is rather inaccurate in regards to Catholic belief. I've written refutations of several of Matt Slick's papers, and he refuses to address them.
Why would Matt need to? the Bible already proves Roman Catholicism wrongin many areas!

[Annie]

Ric - I find the chart at the end of that link offensive and misleading. Can you tell me instances of when the Catholic Church as a whole officially sanctions indulgences in this day? An educated catholic who follows the church and it's official teachings in this day and age also does not attribute any God-like qualities to Mary, mother of Jesus. Those that do are most likely following the traditions of what they were taught at home.

There needs to be some serious dialogue between the denominations. These kind of walls aren't conducive to dialogue.

As for the Apocrypha and the Book of Wisdom especially - I hear that Jesus read Wisdom.

[Ric]

Ric - I find the chart at the end of that link offensive and misleading. Can you tell me instances of when the Catholic Church as a whole officially sanctions indulgences in this day? An educated catholic who follows the church and it's official teachings in this day and age also does not attribute any God-like qualities to Mary, mother of Jesus. Those that do are most likely following the traditions of what they were taught at home.

There needs to be some serious dialogue between the denominations. These kind of walls aren't conducive to dialogue.

As for the Apocrypha and the Book of Wisdom especially - I hear that Jesus read Wisdom.
I'm not sorry if you find the truth offensive.

[Twilly Spree]

X. Indulgences

1471
The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.

and

1478
An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

There is the complete section on indulgences. Indulgences often too refers to the old practice during the reformation in which people could pay money to be absolved of sins. That was done away with a long time ago. You got yours from the summary section.

[Wesley's son]

Ric - I find the chart at the end of that link offensive and misleading. Can you tell me instances of when the Catholic Church as a whole officially sanctions indulgences in this day? An educated catholic who follows the church and it's official teachings in this day and age also does not attribute any God-like qualities to Mary, mother of Jesus. Those that do are most likely following the traditions of what they were taught at home.

There needs to be some serious dialogue between the denominations. These kind of walls aren't conducive to dialogue.

As for the Apocrypha and the Book of Wisdom especially - I hear that Jesus read Wisdom.


How does Mary hear and answer countless prayers simultaneously without having God-like qualities?

[Twilly Spree]

Jude I took the time to look up everything you quoted from the Catechism. You have completely presented those quotes out of context. Let's see shall we?

"Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." (The Catechism Pg. 222, #837).

The complete paragraph contained in the "Who Belongs to the Catholic Chruch?" section:

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body' not ‘in heart.'"


"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." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). Twilly Spree, Which will you beleive Rome or God???"


Looked up that verse too. It talks mostly about forgiveness. That even though we have sinned, God's mercy is great.


Well that was fun.

[Rahab]

Jude I took the time to look up everything you quoted from the Catechism. You have completely presented those quotes out of context. Let's see shall we?

"Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved." (The Catechism Pg. 222, #837).

The complete paragraph contained in the "Who Belongs to the Catholic Chruch?" section:

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body' not ‘in heart.'"


"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." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). Twilly Spree, Which will you beleive Rome or God???"


Looked up that verse too. It talks mostly about forgiveness. That even though we have sinned, God's mercy is great.


Well that was fun.
Bonjour Twilly..... I think the ritual aspect of catholic faith may be what makes evangelicals "frown" at the claim that only salvation by Grace is indeed taught. We are ourselves divided over the necessity for baptism to be saved or the practise of tongues to exhibit the presence of the Holy Spirit in a believer (which does question salvation as the Holy Spirit being part of the Trinity could not be absent from a believer if indeed he has recieved Christ)....

And it is a fact that some practises in catholic faith seem to contradict Christ's exhortations....the use of the title of "father" for example which is to be strictly reserved for God. But IMO it does not mean that catholics do not understand the plan of salvation thru Christ.

There is a defensive response also from us as we often deal with the RCC notion that it is the only authentic church.... those outside the RCC find themselves almost pictured as heretics. There is something sectarian about the RCC.
Evangelicals have direct access to God thru Christ... our ministers and church structure is there to equip and disciple believers not so much to allow access to God. The church hierarchy does respect the concept of a direct relationship with the Father thru Christ without human mediators. Our ministers are like shepherds who guide the sheep and guard them from danger but it is " the sheep who hear His Voice".( my sheep will hear my voice).

It seems that the evangelical movement encourages more individuality in how each christian relates to Christ.

There was a time when catholics were forbidden from studying scriptures on their own. Only the church leadership was to communicate the message. Another aspect of RCC practise ( reformed now under Vatican II) which denied the ability for a catholic to understand the Word of God thru personal and individual meditation enligthened by the Holy Spirit.

The dogmatic aspect of the RCC has also been under criticism.....though among some evangelical denominations, legalism seems to prevail.

I think what is important Twilly is to refocus on the foundation of how human beings are saved and to believe heartedly that our salvation is sealed thru Christ soly.
If I have met in Italy catholics who did not have that foundation because too caught in the ritualistic aspect of conservative catholicism and mostly for not having any personal knowledge of the Biblical message, in the USA I would think that most catholics have that vital foundation. I also met charismatic catholic groups in the US who have explored New Testament teachings closely.
I also want to point to the effectiveness of catholic ministries overseas... I grew up partialy in Africa, and my memory is still moved by the scene of the Little Sisters of the Poor gathering the lepers off the streets of Dakar to take them for treatment at the local catholic medical dispensary.
They were not afraid to touch them and meant to relieve those miserable creatures from their sufferings. As Christ did.
I also remember an example of a poor blessing the poor.... in the humble fishing harbor of Pozzuoli near by Naples Italy, each evening about 6 pm, the old priest who inhabits the most destitute church I have ever seen, comes out to bless and pray for the fishermen preparing for a long night of harvesting at sea. He is Christ's presence in their difficult modest lives. They leave strengthened with the faith that God will bring fish in their nets.

[Solly]

This is quite an extensive definition of "cult", but may the Lord preserve us from one sentence definitions that enable us to cast out all and sundry.

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult

IDENTIFYING A CULT

There has been much confusion about cults and how to 'pickem'.

Some have difficulty identifying a cult because it is not so
easy to identify one that is not even religious. For this
reason, over the years, different definitions of what actually
is a cult have developed to make it easier when you know
little about their beliefs.

The different definitions:

SECULAR DEFINITION

CULT - From the Latin "cultis" which denotes all that is
involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude.
This definition actually denotes what we call denominations
and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION

CULT - Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox,
historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ;
His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to
earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults
within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within
other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it
cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do
not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION

CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian
leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming
from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be
the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full
Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform
or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their
members.

This definition covers cults within all majopr world
religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS
religious base such as commercial, educational and
psychological cults. Others may define these a little
differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not
their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of
Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the
Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not.
Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have
behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches.
These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian
faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or
someone's particular writings. They centre around the
interpretations of the leadership and submissive and
unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member
of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider
non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as
the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be
using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.

OTHER IDENTIFICATION MARKS

(a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to
others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT -
everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD'S WILL -
everyone else is in apostasy.

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse
God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be
THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.


HOW THEY DO THIS

1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or
position of authority given by God.

2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance
regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and
exalting their own group, leader/s and work.

3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members
loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire
calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon;
being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital
part of the mind control process.

4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to
the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked);
signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive
methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed;
selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of
their "ministry".

At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take
up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell
literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don't do this. This
gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money.

5. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its
teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the
group's activities. They will have little or no time to think for
themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is
also a vital part of the mind control process.

6. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private
lives of members. This control can be direct through communal
living, or constant and repetitious teaching on "how to be a true
Christian" or "being obedient to leadership". Members will look to
their leaders for guidance in everything they do.


7. Bible-based cults may proclaim they have no clergy/laity
distinction and no paid ministry class - that they are all equal.


8. Any dissent or questioning of the group's teachings is discouraged.
Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an
emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission.
This is vigilantly maintained.

9. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in
some way. This could be in the form of "dobbing" on fellow members
(including family) under the guise of looking out for their
"spiritual welfare".

They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception) or
give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment.

10. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may
be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that
involve their lives or have signed a "covenant" and feel threatened by
this.

Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by
other members with coercion to get them to return to the
group.


SOME ABUSES OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS:-

1. ABUSE OF INDIVIDUALITY
They adopt a "groupness" mentality. They are not permitted to
think for themselves apart from the group and only accept what
they are told.

2. ABUSE OF INTIMACY
Relationships with friends, relatives, spouses, children,
parents etc are broken or seriously hampered.

3. ABUSE OF FINANCES
Pressure to give all you can to the group. In non-communal
groups, members usually live at the lower socio-economic strata,
not because of a lower income level, but because they are always
giving money to the group for some reason.

4. "US VERSUS THEM" MENTALITY
Isolation from the community in general. Anyone and
everything outside the group is seen as "of the devil" or
"unenlightened" etc. Their enemies now include former friends;
the Christian church; governments; education systems; the media
- the world in general. Those who are involved with these in any
way see such involvement as a "means to an end".

5. ABUSE OF TIME AND ENERGY
The group controls and uses almost all the members time and
energy in group activities. They are usually in a constant
state of mental and physical exhaustion.

6. ABUSE OF FREE WILL
They must unquestioning submit to the groups teachings and
directions and their own free will is broken. Their "will"
actually becomes the groups "will" without their realizing it.
This is done either by coercive methods including low protein diets
and lack of sleep, or over a period of time through
intimidation. Both methods make heavy use of "guilt".

RESULTS OF THIS ABUSE

1. PERSONALITY CHANGES
Relatives will say they no longer recognize the person.
From a warm, loving personality will come heaped abuse, rejection and feelings of hate. The cult member sees himself as "righteous" in comparison and this comes across in their attitude toward all outsiders.

2. LOSS OF IDENTITY
They cannot see themselves as individuals apart from the group.
Some even change their name as a rejection of their former life.

3. PARANOID - WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED
Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether justified or no, it is regarded as "persecution". Any criticism of the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the "true Christian" or "enlightened" one - not because they, as an individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because they are "the only ones who are right".

4. SOCIAL DISORIENTATION
They lose their ability to socialize outside the group. This can go so far as to not being able to structure their time or make simple decisions for themselves when they leave.

Their world-view alters and they perceive the world through their leaders eyes. They become very naive about life in general.

5. SEVERE GUILT COMPLEXES
They are made to feel guilty of everything they did before entering the group and are to strive to be "good" and "worthy" for "eternal life". Misdemeanors are made into "mountains" so that members are in a constant state of guilt for infringing even the most minor rules. Guilt comes because they aren't doing enough; entertaining doubts or questions; even thinking rationally for oneself.

This guilt is piled upon pile with new rules constantly being laid down about what is sinful and what is not. Illness may be seen as lack of faith - more guilt. Emotional illness may be seen as proof of sin in your life - more guilt.


SUMMARY
Not all these points will be found in every cult, but all cults will have some if not most of them, although these may vary to some degree.


Copyright 1985 Jan Groenveld Freedom In Christ, PO Box 2444, Mansfield, 4122, Australia

Reproduction is permitted only if text is intact, not within the body of any other text, and is not sold for gain or profit. The above identifying information must be left intact.

[Twilly Spree]

Beautifully said Rahab, thank you. You have had so many more experiences than I. I mean just wow. I'm just a girl from the suburbs of Illinois. I also totally agree with you.

[bar Jonah]

As for the RCC allegedly preaching salvation by faith and not of works... Spl_Cadet is one of the most vocal Catholics here in making this claim. And yet even he has readily admitted that because I will not get water baptised, I will likely spend eternity in Hell.

A blood-washed pilgrim, a new creation in Christ, called by Him to preach His gospel on the streets and in churches, and to challenge and equip young Christians with the ability to more effectively witness and evangelize in their everyday lives. But... no water baptism? Better get some sunscreen, shipmate...

:nsm:

[Annie]

As I said earlier Wesley's Son


"There needs to be some serious dialogue between the denominations. These kind of walls aren't conducive to dialogue."

Dialogue is open-eared, open-hearted and open-minded.

As for the Apocrypha and the Book of Wisdom especially - I hear that Jesus read Wisdom."

Are there any comments on whether or not people believe that Jesus read Wisdom?

Also - why are some so sure that the apocrypha has no business being in the canon any more than some other suspect books?


"Can you tell me instances of when the Catholic Church as a whole officially sanctions indulgences in this day?

Does anyone have any instances they want us to know about?

I think the Catholic Church is struggling inwardly on many issues. Serious and open dialogue between individuals is certainly not possible as long as people hold mythical views of what the Roman Catholic viewpoint is upon certain "stick in the craw" issues.

Has no one any desire for any kind of ecumenism?

[Rev John Hansen]

Dear Annie:

BEWARE! ecuMENism AT WORK!!!

What is Ecumenism? The term "ecumenism" comes from a Greek work meaning the inhabited earth. In the Roman Catholic world it is used for a movement aiming at the eventual inclusion of all other churches and religions into the Church of Rome.

Have nothing to do with this "harlot" church. Her rejection of the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice has been brought about by the many additions she has made to the Holy Scripture.

The command and warning of God is crystal clear that the Bible must not be added to. See Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Jeremiah 23:28, Rev. 22:18. Rome adds to God's Word by adding more books to the Canonical Scriptures, known as the Apocryphal Books. These books were never received by the Jewish Church (Romans 3:2); they were never quoted by Christ; they were rejected by the Christian Fathers; and they are self-evidently not inspired. Rome also adds to the Bible ecclesiastical traditions. Rome also adds their false interpretations to Scripture. Christ warned against tradition (Matthew 15:3,6,9)

Rome stands out as a self-exposed liar and as the target of the judgments of Almighty God by her deliberate adding to the Holy Scriptures of Truth.

Love you all.........

[bar Jonah]

As I said earlier Wesley's Son


"There needs to be some serious dialogue between the denominations. These kind of walls aren't conducive to dialogue."

Dialogue is open-eared, open-hearted and open-minded.

As for the Apocrypha and the Book of Wisdom especially - I hear that Jesus read Wisdom."

Are there any comments on whether or not people believe that Jesus read Wisdom?

Also - why are some so sure that the apocrypha has no business being in the canon any more than some other suspect books?


"Can you tell me instances of when the Catholic Church as a whole officially sanctions indulgences in this day?

Does anyone have any instances they want us to know about?

I think the Catholic Church is struggling inwardly on many issues. Serious and open dialogue between individuals is certainly not possible as long as people hold mythical views of what the Roman Catholic viewpoint is upon certain "stick in the craw" issues.

Has no one any desire for any kind of ecumenism?
They dispensed many indulgences just a few years ago, for all kinds of things, including quitting smoking. :lol:

Perhaps Spl_Cadet can expound on the indulgences they offered in the late 90s and even at other times in the 20th century...

[spl_cadet]

Perhaps Spl_Cadet can expound on the indulgences they offered in the late 90s and even at other times in the 20th century...

Current indulgences according to the Handbook on Indulgences. (http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/)

[bar Jonah]

Making your point by hyperlink, Spl? C'mon, you know better than that... Can't you sum up the most prominent ones?

At quick glance, however... I see that this doesn't answer my question, anyway. This is old, from back in 1968. I was referring to more recent indulgences of the late '90s, such as quitting smoking, among other things. This was reported by AP and UPI, among many other world-wide, mainstream news sources at the time.

[rocketman]

Making your point by hyperlink, Spl? C'mon, you know better than that... Can't you sum up the most prominent ones?

At quick glance, however... I see that this doesn't answer my question, anyway. This is old, from back in 1968. I was referring to more recent indulgences of the late '90s, such as quitting smoking, among other things. This was reported by AP and UPI, among many other world-wide, mainstream news sources at the time.

Actually, I think Cadet's list is right on. I did a search for the time period you mentioned and found nothing...besides, I don't see a reason for receiving an indulgence for quitting smoking...unless while taking the action of not smoking you constantly proclaim (at least mentally) a pious invocation, which is an indulgence.

Can you proivde some evidence for something coming out in the late '90s? Like I said, I'm not finding anything on the 'Net...of course, that doesn't really mean anything either...

[elysian]

Well according to indulgence #25, I get brownie points for going on the retreat with the middle school kids (we went two weeks ago) but that might not count because it was for Lutheran kids at a Lutheran church camp. Camping with the heathens (ok, I think Vatican II says "errant brethren") probably doesn't count.

According to indulgence #12, I get brownie points for watching the Pope on TV! How many people have the Pope on DVD or TiVo, and keep rewinding him so he can bless them all day long?

According to indulgence #13, I get full brownie points for visiting a cemetery and praying for the dead from Nov. 1-8, but only partial brownie points the rest of the year.

Now I don't believe Catholicism is a cult but I do believe Luther was right about indulgences. They are man made inventions. No matter how much I watch the Pope on TV or pray for the dead or freeze my hiney off at camp with a bunch of kids, it will not gain me one more speck of favor with God. This doesn't mean spiritual disciplines are bad, but they are not done to gain favor with God but as a response to God's love for us.

[bar Jonah]

Actually, I think Cadet's list is right on. I did a search for the time period you mentioned and found nothing...besides, I don't see a reason for receiving an indulgence for quitting smoking...unless while taking the action of not smoking you constantly proclaim (at least mentally) a pious invocation, which is an indulgence.

Can you proivde some evidence for something coming out in the late '90s? Like I said, I'm not finding anything on the 'Net...of course, that doesn't really mean anything either...
Hmm, okay, so the AP and UPI and major networks -- completley independent of each other, mind you -- made up a fictional story about the RCC offering indulgences at the time, in the late '90s, for such things as quitting smoking? My Catholic boss (who loved to refer to non-Catholic heathens, ie. any Christian who isn't a Catholic, and how they are going to hell) quit smoking because of this. So I know I wasn't imagining things. So I find it very hard to believe that multiple major news media would simultaneously and independently make up such a story. :rihrm:

(And amen, Elysian!)

[Pilgrim]

Dear Annie:

BEWARE! ecuMENism AT WORK!!!

What is Ecumenism? The term "ecumenism" comes from a Greek work meaning the inhabited earth. In the Roman Catholic world it is used for a movement aiming at the eventual inclusion of all other churches and religions into the Church of Rome.

Have nothing to do with this "harlot" church. Her rejection of the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice has been brought about by the many additions she has made to the Holy Scripture.

The command and warning of God is crystal clear that the Bible must not be added to. See Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Jeremiah 23:28, Rev. 22:18. Rome adds to God's Word by adding more books to the Canonical Scriptures, known as the Apocryphal Books. These books were never received by the Jewish Church (Romans 3:2); they were never quoted by Christ; they were rejected by the Christian Fathers; and they are self-evidently not inspired. Rome also adds to the Bible ecclesiastical traditions. Rome also adds their false interpretations to Scripture. Christ warned against tradition (Matthew 15:3,6,9)

Rome stands out as a self-exposed liar and as the target of the judgments of Almighty God by her deliberate adding to the Holy Scriptures of Truth.

Love you all.........
The fact that you have placed the written word of God above the Living Word of God shows that you yourself are the one who is in danger of, or are already worshipping at the foot of an idol.

[rocketman]

1. I'm not saying you were imagining things...I simply said that I could not find a source on the internet to back it up. If you could find it, it would be helpful...but the only links I found were to the 1968 list.

2. Elysian...watching the Pope on TV is probably a lot better than most of the stuff they call "entertainment" these days...and working with kids at a church camp is certainly better than sitting around in front of a computer like I'm doing right now...and the reasom the first week of Novermber gets a plenary indulgence is because Nov. 1 is All Soul's Day...Dia de Los Muertos in Mexico. (I love the Mexicans...what better way to celebrate All Soul's Day than to mock death. :thumb:

[NoeticPenguin]

Dude, the root of "Ecumenism" is the greek word for "One Household". I don't mean to be arrogant or rude, but your understanding of Greek is, in my opinion ... shaky.

Furthermore to be of "One Household" in the Kingdom of God is not something to shy away from. We should *strive* to be together, as one family in the Kingdom of God. Even those we think are the black sheep are still family! Most of all we should work at all costs, to keep each other on the path of Love, and not of hate; To keep one another from denying the brotherhood due to stupid trivialities!

We are one in the spirit, we are one in the Lord! Let us accept that, be we RCC, Orthodox, Protestant, Anabaptist, or whatever creed we claim as our own, let us remember that we are One in Christ, and one in the Lord.

-Pkj.

[elysian]

I guess they didn't hear about the "quit smoking indulgence" at my Mom's church- they have Bingo in the basement on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday nights- and sometimes the ciggy smell from everyone smoking during Bingo even permeates the nave. My mother has asthma and she has had to point this out to the senior Pastor that the smoking is a problem because it is hard for a person with asthma to participate in Mass when they can't breathe due to the smoke smell.

I know there isn't a "no alcohol" indulgence either- or they wouldn't have a liquor license to sell beer, wine and spirits at Bingo. (There ARE Catholic tee-totalers- my mother is one- but they're rare. Too bad Mom doesn't get brownie points for that... And admittedly many Lutherans are partial to beer and wine as well... especially the Germans among us. Consumption of alcohol is not a sin, but abuse of alcohol and drunkenness is.)

My Mom used to believe the Protestant=heathen thing too, and that all Protestants were going to burn forever in Hell. She was really vociferous about this when we were little kids. (early to mid 1970's) She is an old-school Catholic, from back when Mass was said in Latin. This left me wondering as a child if my Dad and my Grandma were going to burn in Hell because they weren't Catholic like Mom. She still does the Rosaries and Novenas, etc. but she has lightened up on us "Protestant heathens." I think in Vatican II they lightened up on that a bit, and even if they didn't I think my Mom's opinion changed more when she finally realized she wasn't going to convert my Dad- he was raised Regular Baptist and is still baffled by Catholicism- and then my sister joined up with the Southern Baptists, I became a Lutheran and my other sister is Presbyterian. She's surrounded by Protestants- her best friend is a Lutheran, and most of her other friends are various Protestant denominations.

I have joked to my husband, who is an agnostic, that if he ever decided to become a Christian he should be a Catholic because he wouldn't be challenged about drinking, smoking or gambling. He could go to Bingo night to gamble, drink and smoke just like he does now at the Moose...

[elysian]

Elysian...watching the Pope on TV is probably a lot better than most of the stuff they call "entertainment" these days...and working with kids at a church camp is certainly better than sitting around in front of a computer like I'm doing right now...and the reasom the first week of Novermber gets a plenary indulgence is because Nov. 1 is All Soul's Day...Dia de Los Muertos in Mexico. (I love the Mexicans...what better way to celebrate All Soul's Day than to mock death.

I agree that watching the Pope is a lot better than watching much of the tripe on TV today- though I may disagree with some points of Catholic teaching I do believe John Paul II is a man of God- just as I believe the Pastors of my home church are men of God.

Yes, I had a great time praising God, worshipping God and studying Scripture with the middle school youth. The adults are edified by it just as much as the kids are. (and it is OK to serve the Lord and have fun at the same time!)

Lutherans also celebrate the church year including the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter and Pentecost (we are liturgical as Roman Catholics are) and we also observe All Saints' Day on Nov. 1. Our observance is slightly different than the Catholic one though, as on All Saints' Day we thank God for His witness and work through the departed believers who have gone before us in death. Our interpretation of the term "saint" means each Christian believer, as we are all justified and sanctified in Christ. We do not pray to or for the dead.

I've always been fascinated by the Dia de los Muertos as well. Why not mock death? For Christians it isn't permanent!

:wink:

[rocketman]

Whoops...my mistake. Elysian, you are correct, All SAINTS' Day is November 1...All SOULS' Day is November 2. So we do have separate days for those we know specifically are in Heaven and for all departed souls in general.

[Twilly Spree]

I've always said I'm the perfect drinker an Irish, German, and Polish Roman Catholic. :teeth:

[Jude3b]

Any religion that denies the essential doctrine that Salvation is by Grace would qualify as a cult.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Ric]

Any religion that denies the essential doctrine that Salvation is by Grace would qualify as a cult.
Sincerely, Jude 3b
So true!

[bar Jonah]

So true!
Most Christians (and I mean those truly saved, not the posers, the Jesusians and the Churchians) don't truly understand the real Gospel of Grace. Granted, most of them will mouth the words "gospel of grace" but turn around and say you have to do X and Y and Z to get to Heaven. Are these Baptists and Presbyterians and such... cultists? Of course not.

Paul does not say a person has to know they are saved by grace, in order to be saved by grace. He says one has to confess and believe that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. No more, no less. If a person fits that description, they ARE saved. Even if they believe in works-based righteousness.

Bad doctrine doesn't make a cult, as I already pointed out. Brainwashing and controlling behavior makes a cult.

[Jude3b]

Many, Many verses point out that it is "by grace" and "by grace" alone that we can be saved. If they believe in a works based righteousness - than they are not believing the true Gospel of Grace or on the same Jesus that is the Lord which is spoken of in chapter 10 of Romans. Paul did say to belive "ON" the Lord Jesus Christ. On means to fully trust in His finished work alone - not on any religious works that we have done. If you don't have the Jesus of the Bible and the salvation by grace as spoken of in the Bible, than your religion qualifies as a Cult to me.

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[rocketman]

FYI...Pelagianism (we can save ourselves) was condemned in the 5th century.

[bar Jonah]

Many, Many verses point out that it is "by grace" and "by grace" alone that we can be saved. If they believe in a works based righteousness - than they are not believing the true Gospel of Grace or on the same Jesus that is the Lord which is spoken of in chapter 10 of Romans. Paul did say to belive "ON" the Lord Jesus Christ. On means to fully trust in His finished work alone - not on any religious works that we have done. If you don't have the Jesus of the Bible and the salvation by grace as spoken of in the Bible, than your religion qualifies as a Cult to me.

Sincerely, Jude 3b
Who here disputes this? I don't know of anyone who does? :nsm:

[Jude3b]

Dear Right Idea:
There are people replying who believe and practice sacramentalism in addition to grace. In other words that have to have grace plus (sacraments, religious works). Just read the replys from some of the contributors and you will see that.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Dear Right Idea:
There are people replying who believe and practice sacramentalism in addition to grace. In other words that have to have grace plus (sacraments, religious works). Just read the replys from some of the contributors and you will see that.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

A sacrament is merely a physical means through which grace is conferred.

[Ric]

Most Christians (and I mean those truly saved, not the posers, the Jesusians and the Churchians) don't truly understand the real Gospel of Grace. Granted, most of them will mouth the words "gospel of grace" but turn around and say you have to do X and Y and Z to get to Heaven. Are these Baptists and Presbyterians and such... cultists? Of course not.

Paul does not say a person has to know they are saved by grace, in order to be saved by grace. He says one has to confess and believe that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. No more, no less. If a person fits that description, they ARE saved. Even if they believe in works-based righteousness.

Bad doctrine doesn't make a cult, as I already pointed out. Brainwashing and controlling behavior makes a cult.
Thank you for your post, and I agree with almost all of it!

Where I disagree is where any religious group that has doctrine that leads people astray from true salvation in Christ alone is a group of false teachers.

I am not calling the Roman Catholic church an outright cult, but the Roman Catholic church does have cultlike teachings that does lead people astray.

I do believe that there are many saved people in the Roman Catholic system, but there are far more in the Roman Catholic church that are in need of the Saving Grace of Christ that don't know that they are not saved (same goes with any Christian denomionation too).

God Bless!

[Jude3b]

Dear Ric:
I agree there are probably some saved Roman Catholics. However they are saved because of their personal relationship with the all sufficient savior, the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. They are saved in spite of the the teachings of Romanism - which teaches another Gospel, a Gospel that adds faith plus works (infant baptism, etc.) and only the possibility of ever going to heaven, after the burnoff in purgatory. If they state otherwise the Roman Catholic church says they are guilty of "presumption" and that is a sin also - if you are a Roman Catholic. All we can do my brother is pray that our Roman Catholic friends will read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit speak to them. God's Word will not return unto Him void. Amen.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[bar Jonah]

Dear Ric:
I agree there are probably some saved Roman Catholics. However they are saved because of their personal relationship with the all sufficient savior, the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. They are saved in spite of the the teachings of Romanism - which teaches another Gospel, a Gospel that adds faith plus works (infant baptism, etc.) and only the possibility of ever going to heaven, after the burnoff in purgatory. If they state otherwise the Roman Catholic church says they are guilty of "presumption" and that is a sin also - if you are a Roman Catholic. All we can do my brother is pray that our Roman Catholic friends will read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit speak to them. God's Word will not return unto Him void. Amen.
Sincerely, Jude 3b
Well said, Jude. Thank you. :rithumb:

[Ric]

Dear Ric:
I agree there are probably some saved Roman Catholics. However they are saved because of their personal relationship with the all sufficient savior, the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. They are saved in spite of the the teachings of Romanism - which teaches another Gospel, a Gospel that adds faith plus works (infant baptism, etc.) and only the possibility of ever going to heaven, after the burnoff in purgatory. If they state otherwise the Roman Catholic church says they are guilty of "presumption" and that is a sin also - if you are a Roman Catholic. All we can do my brother is pray that our Roman Catholic friends will read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit speak to them. God's Word will not return unto Him void. Amen.
Sincerely, Jude 3b
And all of God's Children said, "AMEN!" :pray: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)

[Jude3b]

Dear Ric: Thanks for your reply. Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Ric]

Dear Ric: Thanks for your reply. Sincerely, Jude 3b
Anytime! :smile:

:bump:

[Jude3b]

Jesus purchased the church of God, the ekklesia with His own blood. He did not purchase Religious groups such as Romanism, Protestantism, Mormonism:
"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28).

[Pilgrim]

Jesus purchased the church of God, the ekklesia with His own blood. He did not purchase Religious groups such as Romanism, Protestantism, Mormonism:
"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28).
Skip....skip...skip....skip....

Someone needs to smack the record player!

[bar Jonah]

Jude, I'm on your side in this issue, bro... but Pilgrim is right. You have to make a better case than that. The verse you just cited in no way prove the point of your post.

:shrug:

[Jude3b]

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith (real Bible faith - beleving ON Jesus Christ for salvation - not trusting in man made religion), giving heed to deceiving (religious) spirits and doctrines of demons (salvation by works). Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry (priests and nuns), and commanding to abstain from food (during lent, etc) which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (of the Gospel of Salvation by Grace through faith)." (I Tim. 4:1-3).

[Jude3b]

God offers His children this invitation: "And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me." (Psalm 50:15)

"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." (Phil. 4:6-7)

[Jude3b]

The Bible condemns Roman Catholicism's form of prayer, and the Roman Catholic church condemns the Biblical form of prayer. Obviously, you must choose sides on this issue.

[Jude3b]

Jesus Christ sets people free. Roman Catholicism brings people into bondage, just like any false cult does.

[bar Jonah]

Again, I categorically reject the label of "cult" for the RCC. They are heretical and antichrist, but not a cult. There's a huge difference. Nevertheless, they certainly do put people under the bondage of the Law rather than under grace.

[Columba]

Again, I categorically reject the label of "cult" for the RCC. They are heretical and antichrist, but not a cult. There's a huge difference. Nevertheless, they certainly do put people under the bondage of the Law rather than under grace.I hope I don't get in trouble for this because I'm new here. But it really seems to me, after reading all these posts, that the same problem with the LDS applies here. (I have LDS relatives and they drive me crazy with their stuff.)

The OP here, states that the RCC is a cult. The LDS (clearly a cult) claim that the early church apostasized and that a "restoration" was necessary.

Well, since I'm E. Orthodox, my response has to be: Is Jesus a liar, or not????
He said,
Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_1)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_2)] will not overcome it.[3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_3)]

The Orthodox churches were founded, along with the church in Rome right after the Resurrection and Pentecost.
"So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26

The Protestant Reformation didn't happen until M. Luther decided that he saw various abuses in the RCC. And he didn't even want to be a "protester". He wanted to remain a Catholic and reform the Church from within.

So if you guys think that there was some sort of apostacy, then Jesus should never have been trusted to select the Apostles. Why would he choose people who could not be trusted to hang on for dear life to the keys of heaven, and pass on the teaching from Him???? If God can't even protect the church that He himself founded, why should anyone believe in Christianity???

Personally, I think you should re-think all this Catholic bashing. I'm not wanting to argue or bash you guys, but I reallly think that you need to re-examine all of this through history and be a little more charitable to your Christian brothers and sisters.

If you are interested in church history, then may I suggest the following book:
The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.

I truly don't want to offend anyone here and I hope to make friends here. But I think many of you need to study church history.

[Twilly Spree]

Personally, I think you should re-think all this Catholic bashing. I'm not wanting to argue or bash you guys, but I reallly think that you need to re-examine all of this through history and be a little more charitable to your Christian brothers and sisters.

Thanks Columba! I said that a long time ago in one of these Catholic threads.

[Ric]

Again, I categorically reject the label of "cult" for the RCC. They are heretical and antichrist, but not a cult. There's a huge difference. Nevertheless, they certainly do put people under the bondage of the Law rather than under grace.

Hi RightIdea,

My wife is an ex-roman catholic, and the stories of "guilt" and other such "control" methods she has told me about are quite scary. I do agree that the RCC is not a full fledged cult, but I do believe the RCC is "cult like" in some of her ways and teachings.

[Columba]

Hi RightIdea,

My wife is an ex-roman catholic, and the stories of "guilt" and other such "control" methods she has told me about are quite scary. I do agree that the RCC is not a full fledged cult, but I do believe the RCC is "cult like" in some of her ways and teachings.
Anecdotal evidence is rarely a good basis for any belief.

[Ric]

Anecdotal evidence is rarely a good basis for any belief.

There is no observation whatsoever on my wife's part about Roman Catholicism, she was a "cradle catholic" and went through all twelve grades of school in Roman Catholic schools.

:rcc:

Anecdotal evidence is rarely a good basis for any accusation.

[Columba]

And all of God's Children said, "AMEN!" :pray: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)

Sorry, since when were you two appointed and annointed by God to establish whether or not anyone is "saved". According to you guys, following your logic, millions and millions of people who died for the faith up until the Protestant Reformation were "unsaved" because the doctrine of "salvation by grace/faith alone" hadn't been invented yet. Good luck with that logic.

And thanks very much for damning me to hell also, with that logic. I deeply appreciate knowing that you are wiser than those who have preserved Christianity and the Bible for you to bash me over the head with it.
Additionally, may I say that your brand of Christianity is exactly what atheists and non-believers love to combat? It really isn't "Christianity" that they object to. It's Protestantism, it's spurious claims and it's shaky historical foundation.

[Ric]

Sorry, since when were you two appointed and annointed by God to establish whether or not anyone is "saved". According to you guys, following your logic, millions and millions of people who died for the faith up until the Protestant Reformation were "unsaved" because the doctrine of "salvation by grace/faith alone" hadn't been invented yet. Good luck with that logic.

And thanks very much for damning me to hell also, with that logic. I deeply appreciate knowing that you are wiser than those who have preserved Christianity and the Bible for you to bash me over the head with it.
Additionally, may I say that your brand of Christianity is exactly what atheists and non-believers love to combat? It really isn't "Christianity" that they object to. It's Protestantism, it's spurious claims and it's shaky historical foundation.

:nono: Here we go again! :nono:

Please point out where I ever claimed anyone to be saved or not!
I am SICK and TIRED of FALSE ACCUSATIONS being tossed without thought!

BTW, don't worry about my "brand of Christianity" - because I don't have a "brand"! My relationship with God is between God and me! If you want to talk about "brands of Christianity", then stick with a man made religion which ignores God's gift which is "salvation by grace/faith/Christ alone"!

[Columba]

:nono: Here we go again! :nono:

Please point out where I ever claimed anyone to be saved or not!
I am SICK and TIRED of FALSE ACCUSATIONS being tossed without thought!

BTW, don't worry about my "brand of Christianity" - because I don't have a "brand"! My relationship with God is between God and me! If you want to talk about "brands of Christianity", then stick with a man made religion which ignores God's gift which is "salvation by grace/faith/Christ alone"!
Okay. You started it. I didn't. God's "gift" of salvation by grace/faith/Christ alone" did not start until the Reformation, circa 1530. (for a round about date). And let me object to this thread again: A great many of you Protestants, have, thorughout this thread said "...some Catholics are saved..." Who the hey made YOU the judge and jury on the Last Judgement??? Your logic is full of holes and you are just as guilty as all those that Christ preached against (the Pharisees)...Is that a speck I see in your eye????

Mark 3
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Who are you, to decide where the Holy Spirit is and where He isn't???? Who gave you that authority????
This isn't "liberalism"...this is Orthodox Christianity established in 33 AD.
(Yeah...a bold claim I know...check it out and do some legitimate research for a change instead of using bumpersticker philosophy)

Luke 6
36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Judging Others

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

You guys, in this thread and others, who have condemned your brothers based on man made traditions, have a long row to hoe.


"

[kofh2u]

I hope I don't get in trouble for this because I'm new here. But it really seems to me, after reading all these posts, that the same problem with the LDS applies here. (I have LDS relatives and they drive me crazy with their stuff.)

The OP here, states that the RCC is a cult. The LDS (clearly a cult) claim that the early church apostasized and that a "restoration" was necessary.

Well, since I'm E. Orthodox, my response has to be: Is Jesus a liar, or not????
He said,
Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_1)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_2)] will not overcome it.[3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_117158154_3)]

The Orthodox churches were founded, along with the church in Rome right after the Resurrection and Pentecost.
"So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26

The Protestant Reformation didn't happen until M. Luther decided that he saw various abuses in the RCC. And he didn't even want to be a "protester". He wanted to remain a Catholic and reform the Church from within.

So if you guys think that there was some sort of apostacy, then Jesus should never have been trusted to select the Apostles. Why would he choose people who could not be trusted to hang on for dear life to the keys of heaven, and pass on the teaching from Him???? If God can't even protect the church that He himself founded, why should anyone believe in Christianity???

Personally, I think you should re-think all this Catholic bashing. I'm not wanting to argue or bash you guys, but I reallly think that you need to re-examine all of this through history and be a little more charitable to your Christian brothers and sisters.

If you are interested in church history, then may I suggest the following book:
The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.

I truly don't want to offend anyone here and I hope to make friends here. But I think many of you need to study church history.

The RCC is still in the ball game, its all clearly in scripture!


Rev. 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in the time of The Reformed
Catholic Church which have not forgotten that the Scriptures concern the inner kingdom of our mind; and they shall support with scripture in a renewed insight written on white pages which is to come: for they are complementary to the predicted reconstructionism.

Rev. 3:5 He who sublimates beyond the common scriptural
misunderstandings, the same shall be liken to a new page of history; and I will not blot out his name in the next human evolutionary step forward, but I will recognize him as a Homoiousian before the Universe,
and before the seven transcendent archetypes of our human mind.

[Columba]

Your quotes are a little strange in my translation, but :


Ain't dat da troot! Although the
E.O and the RCC have major differences, I do not consider myself wiser than those who have gone before me, nor wiser, than those who kept the Church together for a very long time, before the schism. Our Protestant brothers and sisters, here however, seem to feel that they are so wise, they can even speculate as to who is "saved" and "unsaved".

[Ric]

Okay. You started it. I didn't. God's "gift" of salvation by grace/faith/Christ alone" did not start until the Reformation, circa 1530. (for a round about date). And let me object to this thread again: A great many of you Protestants, have, thorughout this thread said "...some Catholics are saved..." Who the hey made YOU the judge and jury on the Last Judgement??? Your logic is full of holes and you are just as guilty as all those that Christ preached against (the Pharisees)...Is that a speck I see in your eye????

Mark 3
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Who are you, to decide where the Holy Spirit is and where He isn't???? Who gave you that authority????
This isn't "liberalism"...this is Orthodox Christianity established in 33 AD.
(Yeah...a bold claim I know...check it out and do some legitimate research for a change instead of using bumpersticker philosophy)

Luke 6
36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Judging Others

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

You guys, in this thread and others, who have condemned your brothers based on man made traditions, have a long row to hoe.


"


I started what??? :???:

What is wrong with saying that I believe that some Roman Catholics are truly saved??? There are like it or not! The same applies to Protestants! Get over it! Does the truth hurt that much???

If you ever read your Bible (in context) you would know that the whole Bible is tells us about salvation in Christ alone!

BTW, you do not want to be throwing passages around like that without reading them in their proper context! (Just some friendly advice)

[Columba]

Ric,

Salvation by grace/faith/Christ alone was never part of Patristic teaching. They are the ones who have preserved the Bible for you...are they "saved" or not???
You keep speculating on who is saved "...some Roman Catholics are saved"...where did you get that authority. Stick to the issuel.

[Columba]

P.S: You'll be amused to know that those passages are considered "in context" by Bible Gateway, the PROTESTANT Bible link on this site. Additionally, I used the NIV version for clarity with you Protestants, since I know that you really don't like the Orthodox version.

[Columba]

Also, Ric, thanks for the negative point on my "reputation". I count it as grace.

[Twilly Spree]

Ric...people always seem to be accusing you of doing the whole "who is saved thing" it happened on another thread too. I just find it odd.

I went through 9 levels of Catholic school I don't know what brainwashing seem to be talking about.

[Columba]

"You must spread some reputation around before you give it to Twily again."''

Where am I gonna find another like you??? O Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on Twilly!
:)
Thanks...I've read thru a bunch of stuff and you're right...

[kofh2u]

Your quotes are a little strange in my translation, but :


Ain't dat da troot! Although the
E.O and the RCC have major differences, I do not consider myself wiser than those who have gone before me, nor wiser, than those who kept the Church together for a very long time, before the schism. Our Protestant brothers and sisters, here however, seem to feel that they are so wise, they can even speculate as to who is "saved" and "unsaved".

They mean well. At least, they have read the scriptures.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye THINK ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

As in the day of the Lord, there are those who sit in the seat of Moses. They forget the words against this, and they judge as they see it.

Yet, they are without reply concerning 100's of questions, all mysteries to be unlocked, that only the key given to Peter can answer.

Isa. 43:9 Let the twelve Major Christian Denominations be gathered together, and let the Christian membership be assembled: who among them can declare this, and show us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be
justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.


They imagine wild ideas about the Urim and Thummim with any concrete scriptural support.
.
They have no clue why the New Jeruusalem is a very large geometric cube.

They have no ideas concerning the iron tod by which he will rule the nations.

They avoid a heaven and an earth without the sea.

There is only faith, no reasonale explanation for the end to death and pain.

The hidden manna is rarely mentioned, though promised to us.

None can tell nor offer rational hypothesis why he "holds seven stars in his right hand."

They skip over the baptism of fire using the "fan in his hand."

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is
one that accuseth you, even Moses (because the key is a contrivance to be found in the Torah), in whom ye trust.

[Jude3b]

Jesus said, "I will build my church." We also ready in a number of places that the church is the body of Christ. It is the church of God. The church does not belong to Rome, therefore Roman Catholicism is a false cult, an anti-Christ.

[Columba]

Jude,

Your argument falls apart, when we consider this: Jesus was speaking to Peter, not to you . He said "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church...."

He gave the authority to Peter and to the Apostles by laying hands on them, they had the authority to lay hands on others (which they did) to evangelize and spread the good news. If Peter couldn't be trusted, indeed, if all of them just spread a bunch of bunk, why did Jesus trust them in the first place? Why not choose better people. The Roman Church, along with the Orthodox churches which were founded have existed since the beginning. St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

If you believe that doctrinal development had to take place, that the early churches including Rome, and the Orthodox were just all apostate from the beginning, and that it took 1500 years for God to perfect the doctrine, then the Apostles aren't "saved" either. If you believe that the early church had a "protestant view" of salvation by grace/faith/ alone, you are just not dealing with reality.

If you believe that God did not establish the true churches from the beginning, and couldn't even protect them with the Holy Spirit throughout 2000 years, your God is pretty weak and your entire theology needs questioning.

Give us a break here...your argument is so totally flawed and you cannot back it up with any reasonable historical sources or scripture that doesn't resemble a game of Twister.

What you guys have posted in this thread is offensive but more than that it's just plain sad that some Protestants do not read their history books and in their fiery zeal, proceed to condemn millions of people to "hell" with an authority they do not possess.

[Jude3b]

"... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (the church of God, the body of Christ); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18).

Romanism contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock. All other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter:
".... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:4)
Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church of God:
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;" (Ephesians 2:20)
"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God" (Psalm 18:31)

Offensive, yes indeed - false religion claiming to be the church of God is very offensive! Sinful fallible men claiming authority in place of the Word of God is very offensive!

[Jezz]

Offensive, yes indeed - false religion claiming to be the church of God is very offensive! Sinful fallible men claiming authority in place of the Word of God is very offensive!
...said the sinful, fallible man claiming to have the one true, infallible interpretation of the Word of God... :lmbo:

[Ric]

Ric...people always seem to be accusing you of doing the whole "who is saved thing" it happened on another thread too. I just find it odd.

I went through 9 levels of Catholic school I don't know what brainwashing seem to be talking about.

Nope, only people who are following a false gospel make the accusions!
:rcc:

[kofh2u]

...said the sinful, fallible man claiming to have the one true, infallible interpretation of the Word of God... :lmbo:



The specific inclusion of the RCC as one of the denominational stages of growth within the whole of the Christian body of Christ is both supported in scripture and criticized:

Rev. 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because
thou tolerate a sexual deviant sect, which calleth herself a proclaimer
of the doctrine of celibacy, to teach and to seduce my congregators to accept an institutionalized enculturation, and to engage in pedophilia and sodomies.

Rev. 2:21 And I gave this sect within the Universal Catholic Church
400 years to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

[Jezz]

There are rare members of Mormonism and the Watchtower who confess and believe that Jesus is their Lord and that He rose from the dead, and they will be saved. They aren't good Mormons or JWs, but it can rarely happen.
I don't know enough about Mormonism to comment authoritatively on this issue, so I will refrain. However, I do know a great deal about the JWs, and the way you have represented the Watchtower association is completely incorrect (common misconceptions to be sure, but incorrect nonetheless).

What you wrote above implies that the official Watchtower teaching denies that Jesus is their Lord, that He rose from the dead, and that He is our saviour. All of these claims are false. The Watchtower acknowledges Jesus as Lord, they acknowledge the resurrection, and they acknowledge that Jesus died to save mankind from their sins - they always have taught this. And all good JWs believe all of these things.

The Watchtower have a few strange ideas which puts them very much on the fringe of orthodoxy, but primarily what makes them a heretical group is two things:

1. Arianism - that is, they deny that the Word of God is eternal. A necessary consequence of this is that they deny the deity of Christ.
2. They deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is considered to be God's "impersonal force".

Can JWs be saved in spite of these heresies? Of course they can. God can save whomever He wills. Will they be saved? That's not for me to judge.

By the same token, a Catholic can be saved (and much more likely than a Mormon or JW, to boot), but will often be a poor Catholic.

This chart isn't about individuals, but about the belief systems themselves. I agree with Ric, wholeheartedly.
It's not even about the Catholic belief system. It's about a cariacature of the belief system (much as you cariacatured the Watchtower). To be fair, many Catholics are cariactures of their own position, and some things I think that even those that aren't cariactures are a bit confused about (no more confused than many of the anti-Catholic posters here, mind you). Does this mean that they can't be saved? Of course not. God can save whomever He wills. Will they be saved? That's not for me to judge. Nor is it for anyone here to judge. There is only one Judge, and I wouldn't dare try and usurp His authority.

[Jude3b]

...said the sinful, fallible man claiming to have the one true, infallible interpretation of the Word of God... :lmbo:

The Word of God does not need to be interpreted. We are supposed to believe it, not interpret it. Religionists need to "interpret" it so they can try to make it line up with their false doctrines of their false religions.

[bar Jonah]

If I believe that Jesus is an English lord, and that he rose from the dead... will I be saved?

Ridiculous, right?

So is their belief -- that Jesus is not THE LORD. That is, that He is not YHWH. That He is not Adonai. HaShem. That He is not God. Flying in the face of copious scripture.

Saying that He is some kind of "lord" doesn't confess who He really is. The Lord our God is One. Their "lord" is not God. They worship a created being, and this is idol worship.

[Jezz]

The Word of God does not need to be interpreted.
If by "Word of God", you mean the eternal Logos - the 2nd person of the Trinity, then yes I agree.

But if you mean the Bible (which I suspect that you do), then this is rubbish. Any written document needs to be interpreted. The process of understanding the Bible is a process of interpreting it. Without interpretation, the Bible is just random squiggles on a page.

Do you read ancient Greek? I suspect not. Which means you've likely only ever read an English translation of the Bible. Which means you've only ever read an interpretation of the Bible. Note that different translations are often slightly different. That's because the translators had different interpretations of certain passages.

We are supposed to believe it, not interpret it.
There can be no belief without comprehension. And as per above, there be no comprehension without interpretation.

Religionists need to "interpret" it so they can try to make it line up with their false doctrines of their false religions.
No, everyone needs to intepret it, and some (many) interpret it wrong. They interpret it wrong because they make the mistake of thinking that it doesn't need to be interpreted.

Here's a challenge for you, Jude: Find me a passage in the Bible which tells you that the Bible does not need to be interpreted. 5 pearls if you can find one.

[Jezz]

If I believe that Jesus is an English lord, and that he rose from the dead... will I be saved?
Such a person would indeed be in danger, but nevertheless perhaps God will save him. God can save whomever He wills. That is not for me to judge.

Ridiculous, right?
On the face of it, yes. But, lots of things that God does seem ridiculous to my comparatively feeble mind. If God decides to save such a person, who am I to judge Him?

So is their belief -- that Jesus is not THE LORD. That is, that He is not YHWH. That He is not Adonai. HaShem. That He is not God. Flying in the face of copious scripture.

Saying that He is some kind of "lord" doesn't confess who He really is. The Lord our God is One. Their "lord" is not God.
Indeed, the JWs have some strange ideas about Jesus and God, and I do believe that they have interpreted the scriptures incorrectly. This certainly puts a strain on their relationship with God. Does it do irreparable damage? Only God knows.

They worship a created being, and this is idol worship.
Again, you have your facts wrong. Please, get your facts straight before tearing into a rival group like this. In this day and age of the internet, there's not much excuse for attacking a person/group's beliefs in ignorance. Go to a JW site to find out - don't rely on CARM or some site like it.

They don't worship Jesus, precisely because they believe he was a created being, and that he was not God. Despite their heretical theology, and strange ideas, the JWs have an extreme reverence for God.

[VFarris01]

Dear Columba,

You appear to have arrived in this thread wanting to cause trouble. Never the less, here is my understanding of Matthew 16:18 and the Rock of Christ.

Concerning Matthew 16:16-19 from Vicars of Christ.

There is, however, another interpretation of this text with a better pedigree than most Catholics realize. It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead. The great pun, the play on words, was applied exclusively to Peter.

The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.

Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an ‘inheritance.’ There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office. In so far as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate in general. All bishops are successors to all the Apostles.

[bar Jonah]

VFarris, right on!

Except that I certainly do agree Christ gave the keys to Peter. It's just that... keys aren't a symbol of authority to declare doctrine or lead. Keys are symbolic of ... what?

Unlocking doors that have been locked. And locking doors that were open. Closing off the active dispensation that Christ preached in His earthly gospel because Israel failed her election .... and unlocking the door to Paul's authority to found the church as we know it, while Peter and James were relegated to going only to the believing Jews of their day who were saved before Paul.

A new direction, a new door of Paul's unique Mystery of the Body of Christ, which is mentioned by no one in the entire Bible except Paul.

The keys were necessary, because Christ knew if Israel failed her election, someone had to have the authority to "pass the torch" to the person who would lead a different direction. Paul, having been the Torquemada of Judea, couldn't have taken over going to the world unless someone had the authority to unlock that door. That was Peter's responsibility.

James headed the Church. Not Peter. Peter had a different role.

[spl_cadet]

Except that I certainly do agree Christ gave the keys to Peter. It's just that... keys aren't a symbol of authority to declare doctrine or lead. Keys are symbolic of ... what?

Nope. It was an allusion Isaiah 22. Back then the keys were a sign of power and authority.

And VFarris:

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’?" Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 22

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" Letter of Clement to James 2

[bar Jonah]

Authority to do what? To open and close doors. Not general leadership. And there is nothing in Isaiah 22 about binding things in heaven as they are bound on earth, loosing things in heaven as they are loosed on earth, etc.

Gee, amazingly Jesus uses a metaphor of a key to bind and loose something. And rightfully so, having warned the apostles that Israel has but one more year left before she is cut off from God. Knowing the impending critical time, and knowing Israel may succeed or may fail.

Peter did indeed have authority. To lock one door, and unlock another. Jesus gave him a key, not a scepter or crown. The crown is the symbol of true head leadership, even among the Hebrew people. You know that.

[spl_cadet]

Authority to do what? To open and close doors. Not general leadership. And there is nothing in Isaiah 22 about binding things in heaven as they are bound on earth, loosing things in heaven as they are loosed on earth, etc.

Gee, amazingly Jesus uses a metaphor of a key to bind and loose something. And rightfully so, having warned the apostles that Israel has but one more year left before she is cut off from God. Knowing the impending critical time, and knowing Israel may succeed or may fail.

Peter did indeed have authority. To lock one door, and unlock another. Jesus gave him a key, not a scepter or crown. The crown is the symbol of true head leadership, even among the Hebrew people. You know that.

The keys however are the sign of the head servant.
"Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all." Mark 10:44

[bar Jonah]

Yep! Thank you. The head steward ("oikonomos") of the household, who is in charge of the stewardship (or dispensation, "oikonomia") of the affairs of that household.

Unfortunately, Peter's stewardship ended when Paul's began. Paul assumed the stewardship of the Body of Christ, when God set aside Israel and Peter's Great Commission. Paul says he is tasked with the stewardship of this dispensation of God's grace! How can this be the case, if Peter still has the keys at that point?

[VFarris01]

Folks, my intention is not to get off on another subject, for the real concern of this thread is, is Catholicism a cult. Very simply, I do not believe the RCC is a cult in the colloquial sense of the word. Do we all consider the Branch Davidians and the People’s Temple to be cults? If so, the RCC cannot be. However, I DO NOT believe the RCC to be the institution set up by Jesus.

I would like to explore the meaning of Matthew 16:13-20 and how I believe the RCC has misconstrued simple language to mean something it does not. Is a new thread called for? Does one already exist?

[spl_cadet]

Yep! Thank you. The head steward ("oikonomos") of the household, who is in charge of the stewardship (or dispensation, "oikonomia") of the affairs of that household.

Unfortunately, Peter's stewardship ended when Paul's began. Paul assumed the stewardship of the Body of Christ, when God set aside Israel and Peter's Great Commission. Paul says he is tasked with the stewardship of this dispensation of God's grace! How can this be the case, if Peter still has the keys at that point?

Verse please?


Is a new thread called for?

Yup. May be awhile before I respond to it though. Bit tired of arguing at the moment and I'll be busy Tuesday.

[bar Jonah]

Verse please?

Ephesians 3:1-2
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles -- if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship [stewardship, dispensation] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
How by revelation, He -- not Peter, not James, not any man, but Christ Himself -- made known to him the Revelation of the Mystery which had never before been revealed.


Colossians 1:24-29
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which I became minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.

[bar Jonah]

Such a person would indeed be in danger, but nevertheless perhaps God will save him. God can save whomever He wills. That is not for me to judge.
You preach a gospel other than the one Paul taught. Gal. 1:6-9.


On the face of it, yes. But, lots of things that God does seem ridiculous to my comparatively feeble mind. If God decides to save such a person, who am I to judge Him?
You won't even take His own word for it? :shrug:


Indeed, the JWs have some strange ideas about Jesus and God, and I do believe that they have interpreted the scriptures incorrectly. This certainly puts a strain on their relationship with God. Does it do irreparable damage? Only God knows.
So you tell us a person can knowingly reject Jesus of Nazareth, the real Lord and Savior, and yet have eternal life... because hey, maybe God will just pick people randomly to go to Heaven, instead of using the standard He gives us in His holy word?


Again, you have your facts wrong. Please, get your facts straight before tearing into a rival group like this. In this day and age of the internet, there's not much excuse for attacking a person/group's beliefs in ignorance. Go to a JW site to find out - don't rely on CARM or some site like it.

They don't worship Jesus, precisely because they believe he was a created being, and that he was not God. Despite their heretical theology, and strange ideas, the JWs have an extreme reverence for God.
You just contradicted yourself. You say they reject that Jesus is God and do not worship Him (God). And then you say they have great reverence for God. Which is it? Either they worship God (Jesus), or they don't. Please make up your mind and get back to us...

Heck, I have great reverence for Paul of Tarsus! I believe in the credo of WWPS -- "What Would Paul Say?" But I don't worship him!

[Jezz]

You preach a gospel other than the one Paul taught.
You mean the same Paul that wrote this?

Romans 2:16: This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Note: It is God who does the judging through Jesus Christ, and it is men's secrets that He will be judging. I know that my ability to know the secret's of men is somewhat limited - which is why I consider it wise to defer judgment to the One who can see into a man's heart, and know his secrets.

Perhaps you are better at discerning a man's secrets than I am? Do you
think you can do so infallibly? If so, I will bow to your superior biblical interpretation. :wink:

Another important verse in the same passage:

Romans 2:2: Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

Important note: God's judgment is based on truth. If you are not careful with the truth, then you are not worthy of acting as God's judge. More on this later.

Gal. 1:6-9.
This passage speaks about those who preach a message contrary to that which Paul preached. It condemns teachers of heresy - not heretics themselves. The fate of heretics who have fallen prey to teachers of heresy is not explicitly addressed in the Bible.

Or perhaps you intended that passage to be directed at me?

You won't even take His own word for it? :shrug:
Nice loaded question. :thumb: You've got these dirty debate tactics down pat!

Of course I take His word for it. But the thing is, the way I interpret His word is very different to the way that you interpret it. This is because I don't believe that Church history stopped when the last document of the NT was written. :wink:

I agree that people are saved by grace through faith. But you and I have different ideas about what faith is. As I understand it, faith does not mean mere knowledge of historical facts or doctrine. This is a Western distortion of the concept (even more distorted amongst Protestants).

Christianity is supposed to be accessible to everyone - infants, mentally handicapped, and the uneducated. For this reason, salvation cannot be dependent on having accurate "intellectual" knowledge of God. Thus, it must be possible to have saving faith in God, without properly comprehending the intellectual subtleties of doctrine and the like. Of course, the intellectual pursuit of the knowledge of doctrine and God can enrich a person's faith, but it is not a prerequisite.

This was the historical position of the church in the early centuries. For example, Clement of Alexandria (one of the great apologists of the 2nd century), called Socrates and Heraclitus "Christians before Christ", because of their high moral standards and belief in the divine Logos. It remains the doctrine of the Orthodox Church to this day that "all genuine strivings of men after the truth are fulfilled in Christ." (see here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Revelation.html)).

We can be thankful that perfect knowledge is not a prerequisite for faith. I certainly am - because just recently I discovered that I held to a heretical Christology (Apollinarianism). Would I have gone to hell, had I died with this heretical belief? How much heretical variation is tolerable? Are you confident that none of your doctrines are heretical?

That is why I cannot judge a person. I cannot know if anyone truly has faith, because to judge that requires that you know a person's heart, and that you know all their secrets. I can make an educated guess, but I am not equipped to make this determination accurately. I will thus leave it up to the One who is.

So you tell us a person can knowingly reject Jesus of Nazareth,
the real Lord and Savior, and yet have eternal life... because hey,
maybe God will just pick people randomly to go to Heaven, instead of
using the standard He gives us in His holy word?
No, I am saying that I can't tell (and neither can you) if any particular person has knowingly rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their real Lord and Saviour. Maybe the "Jesus of Nazareth" who was presented to them was a distortion, and they were right to reject it.

And again, you misrepresent the JW doctrine. They do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was their Lord and Saviour. They just deny that He was God, and therefore revere but do not worship Him. I'll ask you again, please get your facts straight. Remember, Jesus said "I am the truth" and "the truth shall set you free", and that the devil was the father of lies. When you are careless with the truth, or treat the truth as though it didn't matter, then you are disrespecting Jesus and acting as a servant of Satan.

Part of caring for the truth is acknowledging when you have made an error. Speaking of which, I notice that you have glossed over all of your errors regarding the Watchtower doctrine, too. For the record, they were:

1. Deny that Jesus is Lord.
2. Deny that he rose from the dead.
3. Deny that they will be saved.
4. They worship a created being.
5. Deny that Jesus of Nazareth was their Lord (for the 2nd time - even after I corrected you the first time) and Saviour.

That's a bit weak, IMO. Please, admit that you were wrong on all of this stuff. And please, do it without a "but". 5 pearls if you do.

You just contradicted yourself.
You're as bad as a skeptic who looks at the Bible and cries "contradiction" at every second verse...

It is a-priori unlikely that any particular author has contradicted themself. Granted it happens, but people generally don't. It is more likely that you've misunderstood me.

You say they reject that Jesus is God and do not worship Him (God). And then you say they have great reverence for God. Which is it? Either they worship God (Jesus), or they don't. Please make up your mind and get back to us...
False dichotomy. The JWs worship God the Father - the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Therefore, they worship God. However, they do not believe that Jesus is God, and therefore they do not worship Jesus. There is no contradiction there. It does mean that their understanding of God is distorted, but they worship God nevertheless.

Heck, I have great reverence for Paul of Tarsus! I believe in
the credo of WWPS -- "What Would Paul Say?" But I don't worship
him!
Yes, I know. It's tempting to call you a Paulian, rather than a Christian... but that's a whole other argument that I don't have the time for. :smile:

[Socrates]

The Watchtower have a few strange ideas which puts them very much on the fringe of orthodoxy, but primarily what makes them a heretical group is two things:

1. Arianism - that is, they deny that the Word of God is eternal. A necessary consequence of this is that they deny the deity of Christ.
2. They deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is considered to be God's "impersonal force".

Can JWs be saved in spite of these heresies? Of course they can. God can save whomever He wills. Will they be saved? That's not for me to judge.
False: they cannot be saved unless they repent. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’, they do not honour the Father either (John 5:23). They believe in a false Christ of their own making.

[bar Jonah]

Exactly

John 16:3
And these things they will do because they have not known the Father nor Me.


(Al Gore's favorite verse...) :lol: :riwink:

[Jezz]

False: they cannot be saved unless they repent.
They do repent.

Because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’, they do not honour the Father either (John 5:23).
So, what you're saying is that in failing to give the Son the full honour that He is due, they are failing to give God the full honour that He is due. How does this make them any different from any other sinner? Don't all sinners fail to give God the full honour that He is due? If there is no hope for the JWs here, then what about the rest of us who also fail to give God the full honour that He is due? Have I honoured Him enough? (Note the "I"... works salvation...)

They believe in a false Christ of their own making.
Again, this much they have in common with all of us. We all believe in a false Christ of our own making. Noone's view or understanding of Christ is perfect. Is your understanding of Christ perfect enough to save you? How perfect is perfect enough? Was my heretical Apollinarian understanding of Christ (which I held until fairly recently) "perfect enough"? How perfect do I have to make my knowledge of Christ before I can earn my way into heaven? (Note the focus on the "I" there...)

Knowledge is not what gets us into heaven. God gets us into heaven, by giving us faith. Faith does not require accurate knowledge (though it is enriched by it, and should produce it) - as James tells us, it has more to do with what you do, more so than with what you know.

I believe that incorrect knowledge of God can and does damage our spiritual relationship with Him. As such, this is something that needs to be healed, and that we who have more perfect knowledge should endeavour to do so (in much the same way that one sick person might direct another sick person to a better hospital). But as I said, all of us have imperfect knowledge of God. Thus if there is any hope for any of us, then they must be some hope for all of us. Who will be saved and who won't be? That's not for me to judge. Nor is it for you to judge.

RI: do you want your pearls or not? :wink:

[bar Jonah]

Jezz, now you're preaching blatant inclusivism -- people of any religion whatsoever can be saved if God deems their heart to be "good enough."

Woe to those who preach a false gospel and who lead His children astray...

[spl_cadet]

There's a difference between can and will.

[bar Jonah]

There's a difference between can and will.
:huh:

Not sure what this is in response to...

[Jude3b]

Dear Columba,

You appear to have arrived in this thread wanting to cause trouble. Never the less, here is my understanding of Matthew 16:18 and the Rock of Christ.

Concerning Matthew 16:16-19 from Vicars of Christ.

There is, however, another interpretation of this text with a better pedigree than most Catholics realize. It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead. The great pun, the play on words, was applied exclusively to Peter.

The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.

Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an ‘inheritance.’ There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office. In so far as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate in general. All bishops are successors to all the Apostles.

It is good to start with Matthew 16:16 when considering Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 16:16 "Thou art the Christ." Peter's great confession apparently was given as spokesman for all the disciples since Jesus had asked them the question (Matthew 16:15). They understood that Jesus was both the promised Messiah ("the Christ") and also the only begotten Son of God. They had learned this first from John the Baptist (see John's testimony as recorded in John 1:15-18), but this had been further confirmed by their personal knowledge of Christ and by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 16:18 - Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek. "Peter" is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas "rock" is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable. Even if Jesus were speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two which Matthew (under divine inspiration) translated by using the two different Greek words. The massive rock formation on which Christ would build His church was Peter's great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God. Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be a living stone in the Church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22).

[Jezz]

Jezz, now you're preaching blatant inclusivism -- people of any religion whatsoever can be saved if God deems their heart to be "good enough."
Yes. That is the way that the Church has historically interpreted the Gospel message (including the Greek fathers for whom Greek was their native language). But that's getting off topic.

Show me a Bible verse that tells you that you, RightIdea, have the authority to judge whether or not any given individual is going to be saved or not.

Woe to those who preach a false gospel and who lead His children astray...
Indeed. Better go look in the mirror. The true gospel preaches that Christians should be baptised.

And for the third time: are you going to admit that you were completely wrong and ignorant about JW doctrines? Or are you going to keep dodging by trying to refocus the argument on other questions? My offer of pearls still stands.

[Amazing Rando]

Woe to those who preach a false gospel and who lead His children astray...

Indeed. Better go look in the mirror. The true gospel preaches that Christians should be baptised.

Ouch! :ahem:

[bar Jonah]

Yes. That is the way that the Church has historically interpreted the Gospel message (including the Greek fathers for whom Greek was their native language). But that's getting off topic.

Show me a Bible verse that tells you that you, RightIdea, have the authority to judge whether or not any given individual is going to be saved or not.
Jezz, you are being nonsensical. I have never said I can see into a person's heart. What I can know is that if a person doesn't beleive and confess that 1) Jesus is God and 2) He rose from the dead, they are NOT SAVED.

I know this, not because I'm "wise enough" or "smart enough" ... but rather because God Himself tells me this is the truth! You, on the other hand, seem to tell us that you don't care if God says so... that it's GOD who has no right to judge men in such a way. He made His truth very plain in His word, but you want to ignore it and claim that Muslims and Buddhists can be saved by being good enough, moral enough, righteous enough, loving enough. It is inclusivist heresy, a false gospel.


Indeed. Better go look in the mirror. The true gospel preaches that Christians should be baptised.
On the contrary. For one thing, this is quite off topic at this point. For another, you cannot show me from scripture that a person must be water baptized to go to heaven. And virtually every Christian here at TW would agree with me.

Now it would seem that you think a person can willingly reject Jesus Christ as they are a Buddhist or Muslim.... but if a Christian like me, who preaches the salvation message of the grace of Jesus Christ, doesn't get wet... then I'm not saved? Can you at least be consistent?


And for the third time: are you going to admit that you were completely wrong and ignorant about JW doctrines? Or are you going to keep dodging by trying to refocus the argument on other questions? My offer of pearls still stands.
I'd have to also "admit" that every JW my ministry has met, including missionaries, also are "completely wrong and ignorant about JW doctrines."

Not likely. Keep your pearls. I don't even want 'em.

[Columba]

Dear Columba,

You appear to have arrived in this thread wanting to cause trouble.This is actually not the case, however, seeing the OP as a rabid anti-Catholic isn't difficult and I simply wanted to offer an opposing view in support of my Catholic bretheren.

I've been out of town, but here goes my response:
You stated:


Never the less, here is my understanding of Matthew 16:18 and the Rock of Christ.

Concerning Matthew 16:16-19 from Vicars of Christ.

There is, however, another interpretation of this text with a better pedigree than most Catholics realize. It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead. The great pun, the play on words, was applied exclusively to Peter.

The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.

Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an ‘inheritance.’ There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office. In so far as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate in general. All bishops are successors to all the Apostles.My response to this:

Actually, you have just made the case, albeit somewhat harshly, for the Eastern Orthodox position, of which I am a member. I saw no need to bring this into play to further a Protestant cause. This discussion is one that is played out often between the EO and the RC. These discussion really have nothing to do with Protestants and will never be solved by involving them. Additionally, this is not the only point of contention between Rome and Orthodoxy. There are many other issues. Each side views the other as the schismatic. Yet both agree that Protestantism is schismatic.

Nonetheless,since Protestantism has no apostolic succession (other than possibly the Lutherans and a few Anglican bodies) this isn't really their problem. The problem is: is Protestantism (one could even say non-denominationalism) viable if Jesus could not even be trusted to ensure the survival of His Church, which He Himself founded and within which (in my Eastern Orthodox view) Peter held a place of honor? If Protestants/non-denominationalists want to bash Catholicism, in any form, whether Roman or EO, Who are they really bashing? That's the problem.
:teeth:

[Jezz]

Jezz, you are being nonsensical. I have never said I can see into a person's heart. What I can know is that if a person doesn't beleive and confess that 1) Jesus is God and 2) He rose from the dead, they are NOT SAVED.
Ahh, so you've changed it now. The first post I responded to claimed that if a JW believes and confesses that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead, then they will be saved. Now they have to confess that Jesus is God! Make up your mind already! :wink:

Here is (I think) the Bible verse that you are alluding to, from your favourite epistle:

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Notice that according to the above statement, JWs will be saved, because they confess that Jesus is Lord and they believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead.

Moreover, notice there is nothing in that sentence that asserts the opposite - ie, that if you don't do these things, you won't be saved. It is your assertion that this is true, however this seems to be merely your interpretation, and not based directly on a Bible verse.

I know this, not because I'm "wise enough" or "smart enough" ... but rather because God Himself tells me this is the truth!
No He doesn't. God did not come down out of the sky and say to you that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. You read about that in the Bible. And moreover, that exact statement is not found in the Bible, to the best of my knowledge - what you presented to me was your interpretation, not the truth that God Himself told you.

You, on the other hand, seem to tell us that you don't care if God says so... that it's GOD who has no right to judge men in such a way.
This is a strawman. I do care if God says so. He has that right if He wants it. What I dispute is that God actually did say so.

It seems to me you are confusing "RightIdea's interpretation of the Bible says so" with "God says so"...

See, at the end of the day what you believe is not "God's Word(TM)", but your interpretation of His Word. And given your misinterpretations of JW doctrine and even of my own posts, directed at you personally, written in your language (not to mention your inability to concede this even after it is pointed out to you) - why should I trust in your ability to interpret God's Word? :wink:

You need to consider the possibility that your interpretation is incorrect. What is that saying... "If you're not willing to question what you believe, then you must question what you believe"? :wink:

He made His truth very plain in His word,
You are correct, but His Word is not exhausted by the written word. He made the truth very plain in His tradition, which he passed to his disciples, and not all of which was written down. It is not possible to make the truth plain in the written word, if the written word is divorced from its context. The context and the written word are both equally indispensible to proper understanding. But when you interpret the Bible, you seem to divorce your interpretation from the context in which it was written - ie, that of the historical Church. Misinterpretation is bound to result.

The Bible does not clearly say the things that you are claiming it says.

but you want to ignore it and claim that Muslims and Buddhists can be saved by being good enough, moral enough, righteous enough, loving enough. It is inclusivist heresy, a false gospel.
No, I claim that Muslims and Buddhists can (not will) be saved by the grace of God, through the gift of faith that He gives to them (and to each and every one of us). Yes, this is inclusivism. No, this is not a heresy (as I once thought, mind you), nor a false gospel. On the contrary, this is what the Church has historically taught.

On the contrary. For one thing, this is quite off topic at this point. For another, you cannot show me from scripture that a person must be water baptized to go to heaven. And virtually every Christian here at TW would agree with me.

Now it would seem that you think a person can willingly reject Jesus Christ as they are a Buddhist or Muslim.... but if a Christian like me, who preaches the salvation message of the grace of Jesus Christ, doesn't get wet... then I'm not saved? Can you at least be consistent?
Again, you charge me with inconsistency. And again, I reiterate - it is a-priori more likely that you have misunderstood me. And again, therefore it is a common courtesy to extend to authors to assume in the first instance that the mistake is in your comprehension rather than the author's intended meaning. And again, this is the case here.

I did not claim that a person must be water baptised in order to go to heaven. That is a strawman of your own creation. What I said was that the true Gospel preaches that Christians should be baptised.

Like you, I feel it is off-topic to go any further into discussing the efficacy of baptism, and I feel my point has been made. So at this point, I will simply repeat the mantra (slightly modified) that I have already used several times in this thread to prove that there is no contradiction in my position:

Can God save a person who has not been baptised? Of course He can. God can save whomever He wills. Will God save a person who has not been baptised? That is not for me to judge.

Hmm, I originally intended this to be a simple correction of a factual error made on your part regarding the Watchtower/JW beliefs. The inclusivism was a side-note. No matter. :smile:

I'd have to also "admit" that every JW my ministry has met, including missionaries, also are "completely wrong and ignorant about JW doctrines."

Not likely.
No, you're right - it's not likely that the missionaries were completely wrong and ignorant about JW doctrines. I do, however, find it interesting to note that you were aware that: "There are rare members of Mormonism and the Watchtower who confess and believe that Jesus is their Lord and that He rose from the dead, and they will be saved." Tell me, if every JW that your ministry had ever met denied these things, then how is it that you were aware that "rare members" affirmed them?

Look, you really don't have to take my word for it here. As I said, this is the day-and-age of the internet, and if you want to know what the Watchtower actually believe then there really is no excuse for not finding out. Please, please, please - go to their web site (http://www.watchtower.org) and find out! Here, I'll help you out (from here (http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm)): Here are the pertinent beliefs - the ones that you claimed that "good JWs" don't hold:

-Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
-Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient
-Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person

They have a couple of other primary ones that makes them heretical:

-Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him
-Christ was first of God's creations

Ie, they are Arian. Also (not listed on that page): they believe that the Holy Spirit is merely an impersonal force of God - not a person. I know this because I've read their document: "Should you believe in the Trinity?"

Aside from these things, they would be a Protestant church.

Keep your pearls. I don't even want 'em.
Ok. But they remain a standing offer. I'll even double the number to 10.

This isn't a matter of me wanting to be right, and I'm sorry if it's come across that way. It's just that if you want to effectively minister to other people, you first have to understand what they believe and why. Thus until you've properly understood JW doctrine (and at this stage it is clear that you don't), you will not be able to effectively minister to them.

[Jude3b]

It is good to start with Matthew 16:16 when considering Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 16:16 "Thou art the Christ." Peter's great confession apparently was given as spokesman for all the disciples since Jesus had asked them the question (Matthew 16:15). They understood that Jesus was both the promised Messiah ("the Christ") and also the only begotten Son of God. They had learned this first from John the Baptist (see John's testimony as recorded in John 1:15-18), but this had been further confirmed by their personal knowledge of Christ and by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 16:18 - Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek. "Peter" is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas "rock" is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable. Even if Jesus were speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two which Matthew (under divine inspiration) translated by using the two different Greek words. The massive rock formation on which Christ would build His church was Peter's great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God. Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be a living stone in the Church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22). Furthermore the church that was built on Peter's confession is the church of God, the body of Christ. It is not a religion - Roman Catholic, Orthodox or any Protestant denomination.

[bar Jonah]

Jezz, I already answered that point! :doh: Why are we going backwards?


Of course someone must confess Jesus is Lord. But WHAT LORD? I already asked -- an English lord? That's a lord! If I confess that Jesus is [an English] Lord, can I be saved? Of course not!

The Lord our God is one! (One being "echad" -- plural unity)

The Lord IS God!

Saying "one must confess Jesus is Lord" is exactly the same as saying they must confess He is God. The Lord is God. Wow... I cannot believe you don't understand this unbelievably basic principle...?

NOT all who say "Lord Lord" will have eternal life. Hm, who said that...? The Lord did. Jesus.

God.

:risilver:

[Jezz]

Jezz, I already answered that point! :doh: Why are we going backwards?
Because what you fail to realise is that which I am trying to point out - your "answer" does not come word-for-word out of the Bible. Your answer is thus an interpretation.

Of course someone must confess Jesus is Lord. But WHAT LORD?
The lord of the one making the confession, of course. But any meaning beyond that is not obvious from that passage alone. You need to interpret it.

I already asked -- an English lord? That's a lord! If I confess that Jesus is [an English] Lord, can I be saved? Of course not!

The Lord our God is one! (One being "echad" -- plural unity)

The Lord IS God!

Saying "one must confess Jesus is Lord" is exactly the same as saying they must confess He is God. The Lord is God.
Ok, now stop, take a deep breath, and look at what you've just done. What you've done is offer me an interpretation.

The Greek word "kurios" (which is the word translated "Lord" here) has a semantic range that did not apply soley to God - important people were called "kurios" as well. In the LXX, when "kurios" is used to translate "YHWH" (eg, in the passage that you quoted), it is always used with the definite article (ie, the lord = ho kurios). The definite article makes it clear that it's not just any old lord that they're talking about, but YHWH Himself.

In the passage in Romans, no definite article is present. It does not say "he who confesses Jesus is the Lord" - but rather, it says "he who confesses Jesus is Lord". Thus, it is not clear from this passage alone that "Lord" is being used in its sense of applying to God here. You have brought that expectation to the passage because of the interpretation that you derive from elsewhere (disclaimer: I believe that Jesus is God).

Moreover, you have still ignored a basic question: What you originally stated is that if you do not confess that Jesus is Lord, then you will not be saved (ie, so JWs will not be saved). This meaning is not found in that passage in Romans. It only says that if you do confess that Jesus is Lord, then you will be saved. It does not describe the fate of those who do not confess that Jesus is Lord - much less describe the fate of one who does not confess that Jesus is God.

In fact, a couple of verses earlier, it explicitly warns against speculating who will go to heaven or hell:
6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).Do you have the righteousness that is by faith?

Wow... I cannot believe you don't understand this unbelievably basic principle...?
Wow... I cannot believe you don't understand the unbelievably basic principle that you offered me was an interpretation. That was the whole point.

NOT all who say "Lord Lord" will have eternal life. Hm, who said that...? The Lord did. Jesus.
And you're quite certain that Jesus was taking about the JWs and not yourself? :wink:

Still no admission about your errors on the JW stuff? If you can't admit errors on something where you are so obviously wrong, then what faith can I have that you will admit your errors (if any) in your interpretation of the Bible? Are you willing to question what you believe?

[bar Jonah]

I don't believe that EVERY Jehovah's Witness my ministry has spoken to is a clueless idiot who knows nothing of their own religion. I didn't speak any error about the JWs. You're speaking to someone who is in a good position to know such things.

If you honestly believe and preach that I can attain eternal life by believing that Jesus is an English lord.... and that saying "The Lord is God" is just an "interpretation" ... then I only need to allow your own words to convict you before our peers. I'm done.

[Pilgrim]

Lord does not equal God. It equals, ruler, king, soveriegn, suzerain. So I can see the logic of the argument. But I stand convinced by scripture and clear reason that Jesus Christ is God.

[bar Jonah]

I can't believe I'm hearing this from you, Pilgrim... The Lord isn't necessarily God??? I can believe that He is a Spanish "lord" (hay-zoos) and that He rose from the dead miraculously, and I can have eternal life?

Exactly who are we having faith in? Lots of people are called Jesus (particularly in latin countries) and there are many lords and many kinds of lords. What is this verse referring to? Just "a lord?" Or THE Lord? Are we having faith in a fictional character or a mere man? Or do we have faith and worship God, the only one who should be worshipped?

[nomad]

he's actually a jewish lord :)

maybe this is a confusion of title with status. calling jesus 'lord' is not a statement of deity, but of fealty.

[Pilgrim]

Nomad, spot on.

Right Idea, no where did I say what you think I said nor could you possible come to the conclusion about a spanish lord from my statement. I am only making a linguistic observation that the word "lord" does not mean "god." That is a linguistic fact. There is no room for conversation there because it is a matter of definition that the the Hebrew and Greek terms translated as Lord have more to do with title than divinity.

We come to Christ's diety not on the basis of the word "lord" because as Nomad points out "lord" is a term of fielty not diety.

(With the exeption of the times you see it written "LORD" in all caps in some parts of the OT. In those moments then the hebrew word does have a connection to diety.)

And I made it quite clear that I believe with out reservation that Christ is God. I also believe that Christ is my king, my Lord, my master.

[Jezz]

I don't believe that EVERY Jehovah's Witness my ministry has spoken to is a clueless idiot who knows nothing of their own religion.
I don't believe that either. I believe that most (if not all) of them believed that Jesus was raised from the dead, that He was their Lord (but not God), that He died for their sins, and that He is their Saviour.

I didn't speak any error about the JWs.
Ok, let's focus on one perceived error then. Perhaps it was just me misunderstanding your intention.

To me, it seemed that you claimed in the first post that I responded to that it was rare for a JW to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Further, you claimed that those that believe this are not "good JWs" - ie, they believe it in spite of what the Watchtower teaches.

Now, if I have misunderstood your intended meaning at all on this point, let me know and I will apologise. On the other hand, if the above is an accurate portrayal of what you wrote, then it is patently false. Not only do most JWs in fact believe that Jesus rose from the dead, to be a "good JW" you must believe it - because that's what the Watchtower society teaches (as per my above quote direct from the Watchtower web site). Hence, the above statement is false.

Let me make it as clear as I can:

1. The Watchtower society teach that Jesus was raised from the dead.
2. A "good JW" believes what the Watchtower society teaches.
3. Therefore, a "good JW" believes that Jesus was raised from the dead.

This is a 100% contradiction to what you claimed - ie, that a "good JW" does not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Indeed, the exact opposite is true - if a JW does not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, then they are not a good JW. Either I have misunderstood your original claim, or you are in error on this point of JW doctrine.

You're speaking to someone who is in a good position to know such things.
You're speaking to someone who is also in a good position to know such things, and who went to the authoritative source (the official Watchtower web site) to double check.

If you honestly believe and preach that I can attain eternal life by believing that Jesus is an English lord....
Ok, let's forget the "English lord" thing for a minute. It's not immediately relevant to the point at hand.

...and that saying "The Lord is God" is just an "interpretation"...
That's not what I said at all. As I said in my previous post, when the word "Lord" (ie, kurios) is used in conjuction with the definite article - ie, "the Lord", then mostly (though not always) it means "God". However, when used without the definite article, it has a much more general meaning. Calling somebody "Lord" does not necessarily equate to calling them "God". Both Pilgrim and nomad have backed me up on this, and as Pilgrim said this is a matter of pure linguistics, and it is not up for debate.

Now, as I pointed out in my last post, Romans 10:9 does not use the definite article. It talks about confessing that "Jesus is Lord" - not confessing that "Jesus is the Lord". Because the word "Lord" without the article does not immediately imply deity (as noted above), this means that one may confess "Jesus is Lord" without recognising that Jesus is God. In other words, this passage does not seem to exclude JWs from God's salvation - as they do confess that Jesus is Lord.

So question 1: If the JWs confess Jesus as a (Jewish) Lord, then what it is about Romans 10:9 which means that they can't be saved?

Now for part 2:

Romans 10:9 does not state the contrapositive, which is what you asserted. It says "If you do X, then you will be saved." However, logically it does not automatically follow that "If you do not do X, then you will not be saved." In other words, given this passage alone, one cannot conclude that those who do not confess Jesus as Lord will not be saved. This is an interpretation which goes beyond that which is supported by the verse.

So, do you have any Bible passages that say that if you don't confess that Jesus is God, that you will not be saved? And if not, what reason do you have to believe that JWs will not be saved?

(Disclaimer: Again, I believe that Jesus is God, and that the JWs are in error.)

... then I only need to allow your own words to convict you before our peers.
Ditto. And your peers have come forward to convict you. If you would not believe me, perhaps now you will believe all three of us?

I'm done.
I certainly hope not. If you want to be a better witness for God (and I certainly want you to be, even if you don't), you really need to have His story (history? :smile:) straight. The whole "Lord" line of argumentation that you've been trying to use is invalid. Are you willing to challenge what you believe? Or does that only apply to other people? :wink:

[nomad]

actually, in RI's defense, i think his (errant) point was that if you're going to call Jesus Lord, you need to know who Jesus is. if i find some guy named Jesus on the street (or even Joshua, or Iesous, etc) and say 'you are lord', obviously i am quoting the exact words but this won't save me.

however (for RI's benefit), it's still an errant objection because we know we are talking about the same person. he lived in the first century, he died on a cross, etc. i think we have enough common context to say it is the SAME jesus we are talking about. however, there are theological differences about who or what jesus is.

and the whole reason i comment is because i think it's an interesting discussion as well: i have heard people who say that fruit of the spirit is the 'most important thing', and to love God. the objection to that is that you can't love someone you don't know.

so: how important is theology for this? can we know God, but not know all about Him (i would think this is necessarily true)? what if we know God, but have wrong beliefs about certain aspect about him? can a unitarian (if you're trinitarian) or a trinitarian (if you're unitarian) love God, even though they are wrong about such a basic thing about Him? how do we separate 'knowing' from 'knowing about', and how intertwined are they?

maybe this has already been hashed about, but that seems the center of this disagreement.

[elysian]

A Christian believer is one who can confess and believe the statements put forth in the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.*
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic** Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*or "He descended to the dead."
**not Roman Catholic, but "catholic" meaning "universal"

Now I understand that some Christian groups don't like the use of creeds because they feel the creeds are unbiblical (though you can find Scriptural backup for every statement in the Creed...which I will do upon request) or that they don't emphasize grace enough or stress individual salvation enough. It is a public confession of faith not all that different from the Baptist altar-call- that says "this is what we believe." I used the Apostles' Creed because there is one statement of the Nicene Creed that some (who I would still consider Christians) disagree with, "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins." You can read the Nicene Creed for yourself here: http://www.elca.org/co/creeds/creedni.html

Personally I like the language and the depth of the Nicene Creed more than the Apostles' Creed, but as a blanket definition of Christian faith the Apostles' Creed hits the basics. Even the groups opposed to the use of creeds generally agree with the statements put forth in it.

Roman Catholics believe what's stated in the Creeds, so they are definitely Christians. I'm not going to argue the point of apostolic succession- the reality is that by the time of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church had become apostate and highly corrupt in many ways. The Reformation addressed those areas of apostasy especially in issues of papal authority, indulgences, praying to saints, praying for the dead, and clerical celibacy. (I am not going to claim that the Reformation made things perfect either...)

The Roman Catholic Church has adopted many of the reforms of Martin Luther and others, such as worship in native tongues and accessibility to Scripture. However for Protestants Catholics adhere to some pretty strange extra-Biblical stuff- their Bible has extra books in it (the Apocrypha,) their adoration of Mary borders on idolatry, the idea of doing penance to Protestants smacks of indulgences and works-righteousness, and papal authority has historically often been abused. There are aspects of Roman Catholic tradition and teachings that in conscience I cannot agree with because IMO they are against what we are taught in Scripture. Tradition is fine as long as it is informed by and supported by Scripture. Tradition alone is spurious at best. While I don't deny that those who do adhere to Roman Catholic teachings are Christian I'll not be joining in on the Hail Mary prayer or petitioning St. So-and-So to heal my foot fungus.

None of the Protestant churches can claim perfection either- there are downfalls in every Protestant denomination including unscriptural traditions and unsavory history. The reality is that we are all sinners who have fallen short of God's grace. (Romans 3:23) There are thinkers and teachers and believers from all Christian traditions who have much to give to the Body of Christ as a whole...but we must use caution and pray for the Holy Spirit's discernment as we walk in faith.

Roman Catholicism is not a cult- it is autocratic and highly structured- but you still have freewill. You can decide to leave Roman Catholicism if in conscience you can't agree with the teachings. I know this because I did it. The last time I checked they are no longer burning "heretics" at the stake.

[Jude3b]

A Christian is one who has believed "ON" the Lord Jesus Christ. That is fully trusted in Him and His finished work for salvation. (Acts 16:30 & 31, Romans 10:9 & 10)

[Jude3b]

A Christian is one who has believed "ON" the Lord Jesus Christ. That is fully trusted in Him and His finished work for salvation. (Acts 16:30 & 31, Romans 10:9 & 10)

Is Roman Catholicism a false cult? Does it teach its followers to fully trust in Christ alone? No it does not. Therefore it is a Cult.

[Jude3b]

Dear Roman Catholics Priests: The rosary represents a form of prayer that was expressly condemned by Christ, for He said: "And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him" (Matt. 6:7-8)

Yet the Roman Catholic priests encourage their people to use the rosary frequently, and in giving penances after confession they often assign a certain number of Hail Marys to be said.

Roman Catholic priests, Why do you teach that?

Long before the Roman Catholic church came into existence, people prayed and received answers to their prayers: "Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants..." (Genesis 20:17) - Note and that without Rosary beeds!

[Pilgrim]

Jude, that is not the definition of a cult. Look it up.

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism claims to be the only true church. It brands all others as heretics (separated brethren is just their window dressing). Its attitude makes Romanism the biggest and most prominent of all cults.

The church of god - the Body of Christ that we read about in the Bible is the only true church. It is not a sect and not a cult - it is the church of God. All the truly saved living today on earth or already in heaven are its members. One cannot join the true church, they must be born into it (Acts. 2:47)

[Twilly Spree]

Roman Catholicism claims to be the only true church. It brands all others as heretics (separated brethren is just their window dressing). Its attitude makes Romanism the biggest and most prominent of all cults.

No...no we don't that was a long time ago.

The Catholic Church not only thinks that Christians of other demoninations will be saved but also people who believe in presdestination. Stop making ignorant comments Jude.

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure he can Twilly. It seems to be a compulsion.

But for the sake of argument let's try this little twist on Jude's last post.

"Jude3b claims to be in the true church. Jude3b brands all others heretics. Jude3b doesn't even extend the curtesy of recognising any other brethren. This sattitude makes his behavior cultish.

[Jude3b]

I'm not sure he can Twilly. It seems to be a compulsion.

But for the sake of argument let's try this little twist on Jude's last post.

"Jude3b claims to be in the true church. Jude3b brands all others heretics. Jude3b doesn't even extend the curtesy of recognising any other brethren. This sattitude makes his behavior cultish.

The Bible teaches that Christ founded His church, the Christian church, the church of God, the body of Christ. I don't exclude anyone, not my job man. God places people in the church and only God can remove them (Acts 2:47).

The true church of God is composed of all who are true Christians, those who have been "born again," or "born from above" (John 3:3), from all nations and all religious backgrounds. You might think the building on the corner marked Methodist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Baptist is the church or a church, but those buildings are not the church of God. The church of God is a people, saved people - God's people - His body. While two or more gather together all over the world and constitute the Christian church, the body of Christ, they are all members of the one true church of God: "For even as we have many members in one body.... so we, being many, are one body in Christ" (Romans 12:4,5) This is the true church of God.

[VFarris01]

I is powerful close to changing me mind on if the RCC is a cult.

Members of the RCC do not (are not allowed to) think for themselves concerning their "religion." Three examples:

1) They are not allowed to interpret for themselves the scriptures,

2) they practice a doctrine based on tradition (for instance, Peter is traditionally regarded as the first pope),

3) and they "unknowingly" practice pagan rituals.

[Twilly Spree]

I is powerful close to changing me mind on if the RCC is a cult.

Members of the RCC do not (are not allowed to) think for themselves concerning their "religion." Three examples:

1) They are not allowed to interpret for themselves the scriptures,

2) they practice a doctrine based on tradition (for instance, Peter is traditionally regarded as the first pope),

3) and they "unknowingly" practice pagan rituals.

Um number one, no. I can read the Bible and interpret it anyway I want. Two, and tradition is bad because...... and three, wha...? Pagan rituals?

[Jude3b]

True Christianity lies in the miracle of the new birth. Until men (and women) have come under the convicting power of the Holy Ghost and actually repented of their sins, confessing them, forsaking them and believing in their hearts that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for their sins, thus being born of God, they have not become a Christian. (John 1:11-13) "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD."

A Christian is one who is BORN OF GOD! Getting sprinkled on as a baby in the Roman Catholic church does not make a baby a Christian - it only makes them wet...!

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

[Sir Gimli]

True Christianity lies in the miracle of the new birth. Until men (and women) have come under the convicting power of the Holy Ghost and actually repented of their sins, confessing them, forsaking them and believing in their hearts that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for their sins, thus being born of God, they have not become a Christian. (John 1:11-13) "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD."

A Christian is one who is BORN OF GOD! Getting sprinkled on as a baby in the Roman Catholic church does not make a baby a Christian - it only makes them wet...!

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)
"A Christian is one who is BORN OF GOD! Getting sprinkled on as a baby in the Roman Catholic church does not make a baby a Christian - it only makes them wet...!"

I take it that you don't believe in Baptism. Well Jude3b, you have .5 of the truth. Yes, you are correct by saying one is born of God, BUT! you forgot through Baptism we are born. It is Biblical (the speaker is Jesus), John 3:5 " Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The water and the Spirit are one in the same act. When Jesus was baptized with water the Spirit fell on him. They are not separate actions. You are not baptized with water and then baptized with the Spirit. Rather, baptism is one act of both water and of Spirit.

Another example in the Bible about baptism is said in Ephesians 4:5 St. Paul writes, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

So this is partly why Catholics believe in Baptism.

[VFarris01]

RC's don't believe in baptism, they believe in sprinkling.

Sprinkling is not baptism as defined by the word in the ancient Greek.

G4472 ραντίζω rhantizo¯ hran-tid'-zo From a derivative of ραίνω rhaino¯ (to sprinkle); to render besprinkled, that is, asperse (ceremonially or figuratively): - sprinkle.

G4473 ραντισμός rhantismos hran-tis-mos' From G4472; aspersion (ceremonially or figuratively): - sprinkling.

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ bap-tid'-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ bap'-to A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip.

If Jesus had meant for us to be sprinkled the writers of the NT would have used the Greek word for sprinkle instead of the Greek word for baptize.

[Sir Gimli]

RC's don't believe in baptism, they believe in sprinkling.

Sprinkling is not baptism as defined by the word in the ancient Greek.

G4472 ραντίζω rhantizo¯ hran-tid'-zo From a derivative of ραίνω rhaino¯ (to sprinkle); to render besprinkled, that is, asperse (ceremonially or figuratively): - sprinkle.

G4473 ραντισμός rhantismos hran-tis-mos' From G4472; aspersion (ceremonially or figuratively): - sprinkling.

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ bap-tid'-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ bap'-to A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip.

If Jesus had meant for us to be sprinkled the writers of the NT would have used the Greek word for sprinkle instead of the Greek word for baptize.
Let's do it this way:

1. I'm not a RC(:ahem: the drink:lol: ), I'm Roman Catholic, which Christ is the head of, therefore I am a Christian(being a follower of Christ) and I believe in Baptism (and I'm not the only one)
2. I'm not sure where you got your definition, but I looked up the definition of Baptism and it says this:

baptism (bàp¹tîz´em) [Gr., = dipping], in most Christian churches a SACRAMENT. Usually required for membership in a church, it is a rite of purification by water, invoking the grace of God to regenerate a person and cleanse him or her of sin. Formal baptism is performed by immersion (as among the BAPTISTS) or by pouring or sprinkling water on the person to be baptized. Some churches baptize infants; others withhold baptism until a relatively mature age.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Please notice that it also said "sprinkling". By-the-way, Baptism by sprinkling is just one of the three ways of a valid Baptism (done the Catholic way, form, and intent, minister, etc. ) the others (as you can see) are immersion,pouring (over the head, have to make sure though that the water not just wettens the hair though, but actually runs over the skin), or sprinkling (same rules apply)

So to wrap this up, Jesus said just what He meant. By-the-way too, The Greek is the translated version from Arabic. Just like in the word rock, petros, Christ didn't mean to say when speaking to Peter, " upon this pebble I will build my Church". No, since Peter is masc., the translator put the adj. in masc. but changed the meaning from rock (which in Greek is petra) to petros(pebble) so that the case,number, AND gender would be correct.

Note: if you care too learn the orthodox (true teachings) of the Catholic Church explained, just check out this site: http://www.catholic.com/default.asp

In the Light of Christ,

SirGimli

[Xavier]

By-the-way too, The Greek is the translated version from Arabic.
You meant Aramaic right?

Yours,
Xavier

[Sir Gimli]

Right on Xavier, thanks.

[VFarris01]

Dear Sir,

You cannot use a modern definition to convey the ancient meaning a word. Today baptize can mean pour or sprinkle.

The ancient (first century) definition of baptize has been corrupted by the RCC.

Had Jesus meant to pour or sprinkle (water on) He would have said to pour or sprinkle instead of baptize or dip.

G907 βαπτίζω baptizo¯ bap-tid'-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

G911 βάπτω bapto¯ bap'-to A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip.

Notice in the definition you used, the Greek word means to dip.

baptism (bàp¹tîz´em) [Gr., = dipping]
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

The Hebrew has separate words for pour, sprinkle, and dip.

H8210
שׁפך
sha^phak
shaw-fak'
A primitive root; to spill forth (blood, a libation, liquid metal; or even a solid, that is, to mound up); also (figuratively) to expend (life, soul, complaint, money, etc.); intensively to sprawl out: - cast (up), gush out, pour (out), shed (-der, out), slip.

H2236
זרק
za^raq
zaw-rak'
A primitive root; to sprinkle (fluid or solid particles): - be here and there, scatter, sprinkle, strew.

H2881
טבל
ṭa^bal
taw-bal'
A primitive root; to dip: - dip, plunge.

[Jude3b]

"A Christian is one who is BORN OF GOD! Getting sprinkled on as a baby in the Roman Catholic church does not make a baby a Christian - it only makes them wet...!"

I take it that you don't believe in Baptism. Well Jude3b, you have .5 of the truth. Yes, you are correct by saying one is born of God, BUT! you forgot through Baptism we are born. It is Biblical (the speaker is Jesus), John 3:5 " Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The water and the Spirit are one in the same act. When Jesus was baptized with water the Spirit fell on him. They are not separate actions. You are not baptized with water and then baptized with the Spirit. Rather, baptism is one act of both water and of Spirit.

Another example in the Bible about baptism is said in Ephesians 4:5 St. Paul writes, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

So this is partly why Catholics believe in Baptism.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:30,31). And Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16).
Many people, such as Roman Catholics are being deceived by Satan into believing the fatal lie that in some way or other they can obtain salvation by some religious work - such as infant baptism or other Roman Catholic sacrament. May God help every honest soul to see that salvation may only be obtained by "Believing On the Lord Jesus Christ" and his complete and finished work at Calvary. Amen
After we are saved, we are a proper candidate for Baptism. Not before.

[Sir Gimli]

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:30,31). And Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16).
Many people, such as Roman Catholics are being deceived by Satan into believing the fatal lie that in some way or other they can obtain salvation by some religious work - such as infant baptism or other Roman Catholic sacrament. May God help every honest soul to see that salvation may only be obtained by "Believing On the Lord Jesus Christ" and his complete and finished work at Calvary. Amen
After we are saved, we are a proper candidate for Baptism. Not before.
Catholics don't listen to the prince of lies, we listen to God's Word,the Bible.
Please don't lead others to believe that Catholics listen to Satan, for that in itsself is a misunderstanding. Catholics believe the stuff they do BECAUSE of Christ teachings. I would also like (in another post) to discuss where the Bible comes from. You might be surpised :ahem:!!

We read in James 2:14-26 "14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?...See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone... For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:27 while and teaching the Gospel," I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."

Paul feared that he may fall into serious sin and thus be "disqualified" to go to heaven. If once a person accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior they can't lose their salvation, why was Paul so concerned that he could lose his?

[VFarris01]

(24) You know that in a race all the runners run but only one wins the prize, don't you? You must run in such a way that you may be victorious. (25) Everyone who enters an athletic contest practices self-control in everything. They do it to win a wreath that dies, but we to win one that never dies. (26) That is the way I run, with a clear goal in mind. That is the way I box, not like someone punching the air. (27) No, I keep on beating my body and making it my slave so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not somehow be disqualified.Standard practice of RC’s, take everything out of context. Paul is using an analogy to sports to make a point about being saved.

In these verses the apostle hints at the great encouragement he had to act in this manner. He had a glorious prize, an incorruptible crown, in view. Upon this head he compares himself to the racers and combatants in the Isthmian games, an allusion well known to the Corinthians, because they were celebrated in their neighborhood: “You know that in a race all the runners run but only one wins the prize, don't you?” 1Corinthians 9:24. All run at your games, but only one gets the race and wins the crown.” And here,

He excites them to their duty: “You must run in such a way that you may be victorious.” It is quite otherwise in the Christian race than in your races; only one wins the prize in them. You may all run so as to obtain. You have great encouragement, therefore, to persist constantly, and diligently, and vigorously, in your course. There is room for all to get the prize. You cannot fail if you run well. Yet there should be a noble emulation; you should endeavor to outdo one another. And it is a glorious contest who shall get first to heaven, or have the best rewards in that blessed world. “That is the way I run, with a clear goal in mind.” Note; It is the duty of Christians to follow their ministers closely in the chase of eternal glory, and the honor and duty of ministers to lead them in the way.

He directs them in their course, by setting more fully to view his own example, still carrying on the allusion.

Those that ran in their games were kept to a set diet: “I do all this for the sake of the gospel in order to have a share in its blessings.” 1 Corinthians 9:23. The fighters and wrestlers in your exercises are kept to strict diet and discipline; nay, they keep themselves to it. They do not indulge themselves, but restrain themselves from the food they eat and so from the liberties they use on other occasions. And should not Christians much more abridge themselves of their liberty, for so glorious an end as winning the race, and obtaining the prize set before them? They used a very spare diet, and course food, and denied themselves much, to prepare for their race and combat; so do I; so should you, after my example. “It is hard if, for the heavenly crown, you cannot abstain from heathen sacrifices.”

They were not only temperate, but trained themselves to hardships. Those who fought with one another in these exercises prepared themselves by beating the air, as the apostle calls it, or by throwing out their arms, and thereby inuring themselves, beforehand, to deal about their blows in close combat, or brandish them by way of flourish. There is no room for any such exercise in the Christian warfare. Christians are ever in close combat. There enemies make fierce and hearty opposition, and are ever at hand; and for this reason they must lay about them in earnest, and never drop the contest, nor flag and faint in it. They must fight, not as those that beat the air, but must strive against their enemies with all their might. One enemy the apostle here mentions, namely, the body; this must be kept under, beaten black and blue, as the combatants were in these Grecian games, and thereby brought into subjection. By the body we are to understand fleshly appetites and inclinations. The apostle set himself to curb and conquer, and in this the Corinthians were bound to imitate him. Note, Those who would aright pursue the interests of their souls must beat down their bodies, and keep them under. They must combat hard with fleshly lusts, and not indulge a wanton appetite, and long for heathenish sacrifices, nor eat them, to please their flesh, at the hazard of their brethren's souls. The body must be made to serve the mind, not suffered to lord over it.

The apostle presses this advice on the Corinthians by proper arguments drawn from the same contenders.

They take pains, and undergo all those hardships, to obtain a corruptible crown (1 Corinthians 9:25), but we an incorruptible. Those who conquered in these games were crowned only with the withering leaves or boughs of trees, of olive, bays, or laurel. But Christians have an incorruptible crown in view, a crown of glory that never fades away, an inheritance incorruptible, reserved in heaven for them. And would they yet suffer themselves to be outdone by these racers or wrestlers? Can they use abstinence in diet, exert themselves in racing, expose their bodies to so much hardship in a combat, who have no more in view than the trifling huzzas of a giddy multitude, or a crown of leaves? And shall not Christians, who hope for the approbation of the sovereign Judge, and a crown of glory from his hands, stretch forward in the heavenly race, and exert themselves in beating down their fleshly inclinations, and the strong-holds of sin? The racers in these games run at uncertainty. “All run, but one receives the prize,” 1Corinthians 9:24. Every racer, therefore, is at a great uncertainty whether he shall win it or no. But the Christian racer is at no such uncertainty. Every one may run here so as to obtain; but then he must run within the lines, he must keep to the path of duty prescribed, which, some think, is the meaning of running not as uncertainly, 1 Corinthians 9:26. He who keeps within the limits prescribed, and keeps on in his race, will never miss his crown, though others may get theirs before him. And would the Grecian racers keep within their bounds, and exert themselves to the very last, when one only could win, and all must be uncertain which that one would be? And shall not Christians be much more exact and vigorous when all are sure of a crown when they come to the end of their race?

He sets before himself and them the danger of yielding to fleshly inclinations, and pampering the body and its lusts and appetites: “I keep on beating my body and making it my slave so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not somehow be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27), rejected, disapproved, adokimos, one to whom the brabeute¯s - the judge or umpire of the race, will not decree the crown. The allusion to the games runs through the whole sentence. Note, A preacher of salvation may yet miss it. He may show others the way to heaven, and never get thither himself. To prevent this, Paul took so much pains in subduing and keeping under bodily inclinations, lest by any means he himself, who had preached to others, should yet miss the crown, be disapproved and rejected by his sovereign Judge. A holy fear of himself was necessary to preserve the fidelity of an apostle; and how much more necessary is it to our preservation? Note, Holy fear of ourselves, and not presumptuous confidence, is the best security against apostasy from God, and final rejection by him.

Finally, if you've gotten this far, James 2:14-26 is certainly about works but not works in the sense of the RCC's sacraments. James is talking about good deeds and doing as directed by God.

[romepunk]

Full immersion is the preferred method of Baptism in the Catholic Church. Pouring and sprinkiling are valid as well. And argument over Greek doesn't really cut to the heart of the argument. Sprinkling is valid because the Church has the authority to decide that it is valid. That's all you need to know. Ultimately, that's the only argument Protestant and Catholics need ever engage in. Did Christ establish an authoritative Church? Every other question is collateral.

[Jude3b]

Catholics don't listen to the prince of lies, we listen to God's Word,the Bible.
Please don't lead others to believe that Catholics listen to Satan, for that in itsself is a misunderstanding. Catholics believe the stuff they do BECAUSE of Christ teachings. I would also like (in another post) to discuss where the Bible comes from. You might be surpised :ahem:!!

We read in James 2:14-26 "14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?...See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone... For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:27 while and teaching the Gospel," I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."

Paul feared that he may fall into serious sin and thus be "disqualified" to go to heaven. If once a person accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior they can't lose their salvation, why was Paul so concerned that he could lose his?

Your Roman Catholic Catechism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Roman Catholic church, since she claims that she is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word.

Since Romanism disagrees with clear Bible teachings on many matters, than Roman Catholics who obey Rome are actually obeying and listening to Satan and not to God. "Thy word is true from the beginning and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160). The written Scriptures plainly state that they alone are the Word of God. "...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Religious sacraments of Romanism do not save. Religious works do not save. It is true that a real Christian will do good works. Of course they will do good works. Every true Christian I know helps the poor for example, but they do not do that to "earn" or "keep" their salvation. True Christians do not submit to infant Baptism to "earn" salvation. True Christians do not participate in the Roman doctrine of confirmation to earn or keep salvation. True Christians do not participate in transubstantiation to earn or keep slavation. The Word of God and the teachings of Catholicism are diametrically opposed on numerous doctrines. Will you continue to side with the traditions of sinful fallible men, or will you side with the Word of God?

True Christians believe and obey the Word of God, because it is true and it is God's revelation of who He is and what He has done for us.

[VFarris01]

Full immersion is the preferred method of Baptism in the Catholic Church. Pouring and sprinkiling are valid as well. And argument over Greek doesn't really cut to the heart of the argument. Sprinkling is valid because the Church has the authority to decide that it is valid. That's all you need to know. Ultimately, that's the only argument Protestant and Catholics need ever engage in. Did Christ establish an authoritative Church? Every other question is collateral.If "full immersion is the preferred method in the Catholic Church," how many RC Churches have baptisteries large enough to perform immersion on an adult?

The Greek word, as used in the first century, is particularly important, especially when the likes of Sir Gimli want to change it to suit RC doctrine.

Jesus never gave His Church permission to change His commands; don’t use the tired Matthew 16:19 excuse either.

Every instance of baptism in the NT is by immersion (as is the meaning of the Greek word). If this is not true please provide B, C, & V.

Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.

(2)Do not be conformed to this world, but continually be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is - what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.
(11) Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood-for on this basis the people received the law-what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron? (12)For when a change in the priesthood takes place, there must also be a change in the law. (13) For the person we are talking about belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. (14) For it is obvious that our Lord was a descendant of Judah, and Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. (15) This point is even more obvious in that another priest who is like Melchizedek has appeared (16) who was appointed to be a priest, not on the basis of a regulation concerning his ancestry, but rather on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. (17) For it is declared about him, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (18) Indeed, the cancellation of the former regulation has occurred because it was weak and ineffective (19) (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we approach God. (20) Now none of this happened without an oath. Others became priests without any oath, (21) but Jesus became a priest with an oath when God said to him, "The Lord has taken an oath and will not change his mind. You are a priest forever." (22) In this way, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. (23) There have been many priests, since they have been prevented by death from continuing in office. (24) But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. (25) Therefore, because he always lives to intercede for them, he is able to save completely those who come to God through him. (26) We need such a high priest-one who is holy, innocent, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (27) He has no need to offer sacrifices every day like those high priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he sacrificed himself. (28) For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

[Jude3b]

Full immersion is the preferred method of Baptism in the Catholic Church. Pouring and sprinkiling are valid as well. And argument over Greek doesn't really cut to the heart of the argument. Sprinkling is valid because the Church has the authority to decide that it is valid. That's all you need to know. Ultimately, that's the only argument Protestant and Catholics need ever engage in. Did Christ establish an authoritative Church? Every other question is collateral.

Romanism contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock. According to Scriptures, Peter is not the rock: "For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?" (Psalm 18:31) "...I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock.." (Deut. 32:3-4). God's Word says that Peter is not the rock. Therefore the Roman Catholic church is not the one true church.

Jesus said "I will build my church" - The authoritative Church was built, but it was the church of God. Romanism is a false religious sect, an antiChrist.

[Sir Gimli]

If "full immersion is the preferred method in the Catholic Church," how many RC Churches have baptisteries large enough to perform immersion on an adult?

The Greek word, as used in the first century, is particularly important, especially when the likes of Sir Gimli want to change it to suit RC doctrine.

Jesus never gave His Church permission to change His commands; don’t use the tired Matthew 16:19 excuse either.

Every instance of baptism in the NT is by immersion (as is the meaning of the Greek word). If this is not true please provide B, C, & V.

Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.

(2)Do not be conformed to this world, but continually be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is - what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.
(11) Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood-for on this basis the people received the law-what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron? (12)For when a change in the priesthood takes place, there must also be a change in the law. (13) For the person we are talking about belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. (14) For it is obvious that our Lord was a descendant of Judah, and Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. (15) This point is even more obvious in that another priest who is like Melchizedek has appeared (16) who was appointed to be a priest, not on the basis of a regulation concerning his ancestry, but rather on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. (17) For it is declared about him, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (18) Indeed, the cancellation of the former regulation has occurred because it was weak and ineffective (19) (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we approach God. (20) Now none of this happened without an oath. Others became priests without any oath, (21) but Jesus became a priest with an oath when God said to him, "The Lord has taken an oath and will not change his mind. You are a priest forever." (22) In this way, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. (23) There have been many priests, since they have been prevented by death from continuing in office. (24) But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. (25) Therefore, because he always lives to intercede for them, he is able to save completely those who come to God through him. (26) We need such a high priest-one who is holy, innocent, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (27) He has no need to offer sacrifices every day like those high priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he sacrificed himself. (28) For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
"The Greek word, as used in the first century, is particularly important, especially when the likes of Sir Gimli want to change it to suit RC doctrine."

Ferris, you made a nice sarcastic comment, but I'm not changing the doctrine, you are. Q: Which sect of Protestantism are you?

Jesus never gave His Church permission to change His commands; don’t use the tired Matthew 16:19 excuse either.

Why not? you don't accept that part of the Bible?:shifty:

Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.

Where's the Bibical proof for that statement?

How do expect the truth to be kept if somebody doesn't safe-guard it?
How did the Bible come to be? (Hint: The Catholic Church)
The Catholic Church had one of it's councils and defined what was inspired.

Also, what are your beliefs as a Christian? And why are there more than 30,000 different sects of Protestantism? And why is there only one Catholic Church? Plus, do you know where Protestants came from? (Hint: The Catholic Church-one example is Luther who separated from Catholicism to spread his lies of despair.)

If you got any Q's why Catholics belief something, we got answers. The question is, do you?

[Jezz]

Dear Sir,

You cannot use a modern definition to convey the ancient meaning a word. Today baptize can mean pour or sprinkle.

The ancient (first century) definition of baptize has been corrupted by the RCC.
VFarris,

You are correct that it is wrong to use a modern definition to convey the ancient meaning of a word. Below is an extract from the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) - very ancient Christian document which contains the fundamentals of the Christian teaching. The word "Didache" is Greek for "teaching". This document dates possibly as early as apostolic times.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

It is thus clear that from a very early time, Christians believed that pouring was an acceptable way to perform baptism. It is hard to believe that this is a genuine error, because the apostles or their immediate successors were still around to correct it. Most likely, Jesus Himself considered sprinkling an acceptable form of baptism.

Moreover, the verb baptizo did not always mean full immersion of the entire body even in the NT. For example:

Luke 11:38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.

The word translated as "washed" is "baptizo (907)". Do you think that the Pharisee expected Jesus to immerse his entire body before eating? Or just his hands (ie, the Jewish ritual purity law of hand washing)? Obviously, just his hands. Therefore, the word "baptizo" did not mean that the entire body had to be immersed. You could immerse part of the body (ie, sprinkle).

Had Jesus meant to pour or sprinkle (water on) He would have said to pour or sprinkle instead of baptize or dip.
Did Jesus say that you must immerse?

[VFarris01]

Dear Friends, The Greek word, as used in the first century, is particularly important, especially when the likes of Sir Gimli want to change it to suit RC doctrine.Ferris, you made a nice sarcastic comment, but I'm not changing the doctrine, you are. Q: Which sect of Protestantism are you?
Since you (and the RCC) use tradition and forged texts more than the Bible to support doctrine, I’d say you (and the RCC) are changing the teachings of JC and the 12 (13). I’m not part of any “sect;” I’m simply a Christian; you are not a Christian, you are, now admit it, a Catholic.
Jesus never gave His Church permission to change His commands; don’t use the tired Matthew 16:19 excuse either.Why not? you don't accept that part of the Bible?
I don’t accept “that part of the Bible” when it is taken in context, and used to propogate a lie.
Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.Where's the Bibical proof for that statement?
Hebrews 7:11-28 was not proof enough? Oh, right, I didn’t take it out of context and it doesn’t support RC doctrine.

For when a change in the priesthood takes place, there must also be a change in the law.
Since there hasn’t been a change in the “priesthood” since JC took over wouldn’t you agree the law remains unchanged?
How do expect the truth to be kept if somebody doesn't safe-guard it?
This task should be left to the RCC? Palease! God doesn't let the fox guard the henhouse.
why are there more than 30,000 different sects of Protestantism? … Plus, do you know where Protestants came from? (Hint: The Catholic Church…)
All of my answers and proofs have come from the Bible, all of those of yours and the RCC come from outer-space (in other words, somewhere other than the Bible). You say there are 30,000 (+-) “sects” of protestantism, interesting. You say protestantism is an offshoot of Catholisism; therefore there are 30,001 (+-) “sects” of Catholisism not 30,000 (+-) “sects” of protestantism.
(on Luke 11:38) The word translated as "washed" is "baptizo (907)". Do you think that the Pharisee expected Jesus to immerse his entire body before eating? Or just his hands (ie, the Jewish ritual purity law of hand washing)? Obviously, just his hands. Therefore, the word "baptizo" did not mean that the entire body had to be immersed. You could immerse part of the body (ie, sprinkle).
I think this is a classic case of “the Bible being taken out of context to support errant RC practices.” You must first understand what must be “washed” (baptized). The washing before a meal was not an entire body washing, mearly a “dipping” of the hands in water (baptizing of the hands). Baptise without exception means full immersion; it just matters what needs immersed. Jesus made it clear what must be “washed” (immersed) by baptism in the sense of Mark 16:16.

(1) Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (2) the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him. (3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. (8) The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Clearly, one must be fully immersed in water to be “born anew” and “be born of water” the same as birth by ones mother. Now, isn’t this what Jesus wants of us, to have our “whole body” cleansed.

(3) Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
Paul notes baptism is “in the likeness” of burial and resurrection. That this means immersion is undeniable.

[romepunk]

If "full immersion is the preferred method in the Catholic Church," how many RC Churches have baptisteries large enough to perform immersion on an adult?

Dont' have a number. I know mine does, but I belong to a relatively large parish.

Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.

I agree. But I didn't say change, I said decide. The Church has the authority to say when a sacrament has and hasn't been properly administered. This doesn't mean that sprinkling was invalid until that one crazy day when some Bishop decided to change the immutable sacraments of the Church. It means sprinkling and pouring have always been valid, and the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, was led into that truth when it became an important question. Jezz brought up the Didache, which is a good example. The preferred mathod in the early Church was to baptize in a natural body of water, but what do you do when one is unavailable. Or what do you do if someone is to infirmed to be baptized in such a way. Led by the Holy Spirit, the Church has the right to recognize that pouring is a valid way to administer Baptism.

I'm not denying that full immersion is preferbale, and nails the death/rebirth reality of the sacrament home. But as its been pointed out with the handwashing, "Baptizo" doesn't neccessarily mean full immersion. Furthermore, we must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible never tells us of believers being immersed in the Holy Spirit, rather the Holy Spirit is poured out upon them.

[VFarris01]

Greetings Friends,
If "full immersion is the preferred method in the Catholic Church," how many RC Churches have baptisteries large enough to perform immersion on an adult?
Dont' have a number. I know mine does, but I belong to a relatively large parish.
Excellent! What % of people (believers) are immersed?
Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.
I agree. But I didn't say change, I said decide. The Church has the authority to say when a sacrament has and hasn't been properly administered. This doesn't mean that sprinkling was invalid until that one crazy day when some Bishop decided to change the immutable sacraments of the Church. It means sprinkling and pouring have always been valid, and the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, was led into that truth when it became an important question. Jezz brought up the Didache, which is a good example. The preferred mathod in the early Church was to baptize in a natural body of water, but what do you do when one is unavailable. Or what do you do if someone is to infirmed to be baptized in such a way. Led by the Holy Spirit, the Church has the right to recognize that pouring is a valid way to administer Baptism.

I'm not denying that full immersion is preferbale, and nails the death/rebirth reality of the sacrament home. But as its been pointed out with the handwashing, "Baptizo" doesn't neccessarily mean full immersion. Furthermore, we must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible never tells us of believers being immersed in the Holy Spirit, rather the Holy Spirit is poured out upon them.
We are not given leeway to “decide” on the proper form of baptism. The “sacrament” of baptism in the NT was ALWAYS full body immersion, never sprinkling or pouring. If it ever was not please provide a B, C, & V.

Baptism, while we both believe it to be necessary, is an act to be performed in the presence of sufficient water; for instance:

(36) As they were going along the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, "Look, there's some water. What keeps me from being baptized?" (37) Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." He replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (38) So he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
See also my post (#161) in this thread.

(28) For this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.
Compare Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20. Then compare this to Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16. Once a covenant has been made the conditions of that covenant remain unchanged.

Note the use of "poured out" meaning to give or bestow (see below).


I’m thinking we now must get into the meaning of “poured out” as used in Acts 2:17-18.

G1632 εκχέω, εκχύνω ekcheo¯ ekchuno¯ ek-kheh'-o, ek-khoo'-no From G1537 and χέω cheo¯ (to pour); to pour forth; figuratively to bestow: - gush (pour) out, run greedily (out), shed (abroad, forth), spill.

G1537εκ, εξ ek ex ek, ex A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): - after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

So then “pour out” as used in Acts 2:17-18 means to bestow or give. Compare John 1:33.

[Sir Gimli]

Dear VFarris,

You still haven't responded to my questions. Could you please do in the the next few days?

Chester

Side Q: What's the deal with the "pearls" and "points"? I haven't figured out what they do....

[VFarris01]

Dear Christian Friends, I want to be clear that I regard my RC brethern to be Christians as I too am a Christian. I pray this discussion continues to be profitable for all participants (and readers).You still haven't responded to my questions. Could you please do in the the next few days?I suppose you mean these questions.Q: Which sect of Protestantism are you?I answered this one. For your convenience, here it is again. I’m not part of any “sect.”Jesus never gave His Church permission to change His commands; don’t use the tired Matthew 16:19 excuse either.Why not? you don't accept that part of the Bible? I answered this one. For your convenience, here it is again. I don’t accept “that part of the Bible” when it is taken in context, and used to propogate a lie. Jesus established His Church with Himself as the only lawgiver. To say the Church can change Jesus’ dictates is in effect blasphemy of the HS.Where's the Bibical proof for that statement?I answered this one. For your convenience, here it is again. Hebrews 7:11-28 was not proof enough? Oh, right, I didn’t take it out of context and it doesn’t support RC doctrine.(12) For when a change in the priesthood takes place, there must also be a change in the law.Since there hasn’t been a change in the “priesthood” since JC took over wouldn’t you agree the law remains unchanged?How do expect the truth to be kept if somebody doesn't safe-guard it?I answered this one. For your convenience, here it is again. This task should be left to the RCC? Palease! God doesn't let the fox guard the henhouse. How did the Bible come to be? (Hint: The Catholic Church) The Catholic Church had one of it's councils and defined what was inspired.I suppose you mean the NT. Inspired men wrote it, the individual churches saved it, wise men preserved it. Were the “wise men” RC? I doubt it.Also, what are your beliefs as a Christian?Read your Bible.And why are there more than 30,000 different sects of Protestantism? And why is there only one Catholic Church? Plus, do you know where Protestants came from? (Hint: The Catholic Church-one example is Luther who separated from Catholicism to spread his lies of despair.)I answered this one. For your convenience, here it is again. You say there are 30,000 (+-) “sects” of protestantism, interesting. You say protestantism is an offshoot of Catholisism; therefore there are 30,001 (+-) “sects” of Catholisism not 30,000 (+-) “sects” of protestantism.If you got any Q's why Catholics belief something, we got answers. The question is, do you?Yes.Side Q: What's the deal with the "pearls" and "points"? I haven't figured out what they do....No. I’m sure one of the “old timers” can help us both out.

[VFarris01]

Dear Friend Jezz,

Concerning the Didache: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Stevan Davies comments on the Didache (Jesus the Healer, p. 175):

"The Didache is a text that gives instruction on how a Christian community should treat itinerant Christian prophets. It was written sometime in the late first or early second century and gives good evidence for a structured church's shift in orientation away from spirit-possession. The Didache is written from the view point of a community leadership that distrusts, and yet respects, Christian prophets, one that wishes the prophets to leave town as quickly as possible, yet would have them welcomed in town when they arrive.John S. Kloppenborg Verbin comments on the Didache (Excavating Q, pp. 134-135):


The Didache, an early second-century Christian composition, is also clearly composite, consisting of a "Two Ways" section (chaps. 1-6), a liturgical manual (7-10), instructions on the reception of traveling prophets (11-15), and a brief apocalypse (16). Marked divergences in style and content as well as the presence of doublets and obvious interpolations make plain the fact that the Didache was not cut from whole cloth. The dominant view today is that the document was composed on the basis of several independent, preredactional units which were assembled by either one or two redactors (Neiderwimmer 1989:64-70, ET 1998:42-52). Comparison of the "Two Ways" section with several other "Two Ways" documents suggests that Didache 1-6 is itself the result of multistage editing. The document began with rather haphazard organization (cf. Barnabas 18-20), but was reorganized in a source common to the Didache, the Doctrina apostolorum, and the Apostolic Church Order and supplemented by a sapiental meditation on minor and major transgressions (3.1-6) (Kloppenborg 1995c). The most obvious insertion in the Didache is a catena of sayings of Jesus (1.3-6) which interrupts the continuity between 1.1-2 and 2.2. The same hand that added 1.3b-6 (and the transitional phrase in 2.1) appears also to be responsible for a transition in 6.2-3 and for the introduction to the apocalypse (16.1-2), which like 1.3b-2.1 Christianizes the earlier document by affixing sayings designed to evoke the sayings of Jesus. It seems clear, then, that the composition history of the Didache involves at least two originally independent documents (Did. 1.1-2; 2.2-6.1; and Did. 16.3-8) which were combined with other materials by an editor into a church manual, and "Christianized" by the interpolation of sayings of Jesus.A. D. Howell-Smith writes about the Didache (Jesus Not a Myth, p. 120):

The simple Christology of Acts confronts us again in the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, a composite work, of which the first six chapters seem to be a Christian redaction of a Jewish document entitled The Two Ways, while the rest is the work of several Christian writers, the earliest belonging to the first century and the latest perhaps to the fourth. The Jesus mentioned in this book's account of the celebration of the Eucharist is just the "Servant" (PaiV) of God, who has made known the "holy vine" of God's "Servant" David; nothing is said of the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus. The formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Martyr, who is familiar with it.Burton Mack notes two interesting features of the text of the Didache. One concerns alms, and the other concerns the Eucharist. On the second, Mack continues (Who Wrote the New Testament?, pp. 240-241):

The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.
So one person finds some "Early Fathers" to support one position, and another person finds other "Early Fathers" to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called "Early Fathers"? The Roman Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Roman Catholic Church. Who decided which works needed revision to conform to the latest doctrines of the "Church?" The Roman Catholic Church.

[romepunk]

Dear Christian Friends, I want to be clear that I regard my RC brethern to be Christians as I too am a Christian. I pray this discussion continues to be profitable for all participants (and readers).

Amen!

Excellent! What % of people (believers) are immersed?

Couldn't tell you. At my parish, most catechumens (unbaptized converts to Catholocism) are I believe. We had about a dozen or so at last year's Easter Vigil. Of course most cradle Catholics are baptized as infants (a whole 'nother argument), and I assume are sprinkled (personally never been to one, they're usually small family affairs.)

We are not given leeway to “decide” on the proper form of baptism. The “sacrament” of baptism in the NT was ALWAYS full body immersion, never sprinkling or pouring. If it ever was not please provide a B, C, & V.

This is of course why I said the real question at hand is over an authoritative Church. As a Catholic, I hold Sacred Scripture to be inspired, inerrant and infallible. Dogma and practice may never contradict Scripture, although they often may not be found in scripture. Absence and contradiction are two different things. The Bible is a source of authority, but not the final authority.

This is essentially and argument over sola scriptura. If the Bible is the final authority, then you are quite right that we should keep our method of baptism (and any number of other things) within the paramaters we can deduce from scipture. However, I don't believe in sola scriptura. I believe that Christ established a visible, authoritative church, led by the Holy Spirit.

To return to the Didache, let's put aside the question over whether or not the conclusions therein are true. The fact remains that the problems contained therein are real. Early Christians needed to know what to do when a river or a pond or some other body of water was not available. I believe the Holy Spirit led the Church into the truth that pouring was a valid way to administer the sacrament. After all, GOD defines the sacraments, and he himself is not bound by them. Which is why, though we both believe baptism is neccessary, the thief on the cross was still saved. The Holy Spirit lead the Church into the sacraments as God has set them. When I say the Church has the authority to define when a sacrament is and isn't valid, what I really mean is by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church is discerning what is valid in the eyes of God.

So then “pour out” as used in Acts 2:17-18 means to bestow or give. Compare John 1:33.

My only point here is that, along with handwashing, baptizo had some room to stretch in scripture.

So one person finds some "Early Fathers" to support one position, and another person finds other "Early Fathers" to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called "Early Fathers"? The Roman Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Roman Catholic Church. Who decided which works needed revision to conform to the latest doctrines of the "Church?" The Roman Catholic Church.

This sort of ties into the discussion we are having on another thread, started by DRR, so you can reply to my thoughts on this issue there.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=504368&postcount=20

[VFarris01]

Dear Friend,My only point here is that, along with handwashing, baptizo had some room to stretch in scripture.Not when compared with scripture.

Read this again;

We are not given leeway to “decide” on the proper form of baptism. The “sacrament” of baptism in the NT was ALWAYS full body immersion, never sprinkling or pouring. If it ever was not please provide a B, C, & V.

I must assume from your lack of evidence from the scriptures the scriptures do not support sprinkling or pouring as appropriate forms of the baptism "sacrament."
That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura thought. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.Again, see my post (#161) in this thread.

"Tradition" NEVER trumps the Bible.

[Pilgrim]

Of course the great irony is that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine taught in scripture but rather a product of reformed reasoning.

Farris, it's nice to see the spirit of the pharisee alive and well, keep up the good work.

You say you are not a part of a sect. That's good, that's a terrible word to describe a type of Christian community. Are you a member or a participant of a worshipping community?

[Sir Gimli]

Sorry, When I said "sect" I meant what demonination you belonged too.

[romepunk]

Dear Friend,Not when compared with scripture.

Read this again;

We are not given leeway to “decide” on the proper form of baptism. The “sacrament” of baptism in the NT was ALWAYS full body immersion, never sprinkling or pouring. If it ever was not please provide a B, C, & V.


I must assume from your lack of evidence from the scriptures the scriptures do not support sprinkling or pouring as appropriate forms of the baptism "sacrament."

Did you even read my post? Because you didn't really reply to my argument. You just quoted a throwaway line at the end of my post and reiterated exactly what you said before. I've responded to this already. Lack of evidence in the Bible is not a problem for me. I don't accept sola scriptura. Show me that something CONTRADICTS the Bible, and is not merely absent, and you'll have my attention.


Again, see my post (#161) in this thread.

"Tradition" NEVER trumps the Bible.
Who said it did? Tradition and Scripture exist as a unity, they comprise a single deposit of faith.

[VFarris01]

Of course the great irony is that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine taught in scripture but rather a product of reformed reasoning.

Farris, it's nice to see the spirit of the pharisee alive and well, keep up the good work.

You say you are not a part of a sect. That's good, that's a terrible word to describe a type of Christian community. Are you a member or a participant of a worshipping community?
I take your comparison as an ad hominem and assume it was meant to be such. If anyone should be compared to the pharisees it would be RCs.

Do you also take the scriptures as RomePunk, “to be inspired, inerrant and infallible?” Do the “traditions” of Rome hold the same reverence? More on this in a moment.

Thank you for noting the “political incorrectness” of “sect.” I go to a non-denominational Christian church and am part of a home study group.
Sorry, When I said "sect" I meant what demonination you belonged too.
Thank you for realizing there is a “difference.” I actually go to an “unaffiliated” (it is “one of a kind,” not associated with Baptist, Methodist, etc. if you undersand my meaning) Christian church teaching the “doctrines” of the Bible.
Did you even read my post? Because you didn't really reply to my argument. You just quoted a throwaway line at the end of my post and reiterated exactly what you said before. I've responded to this already. Lack of evidence in the Bible is not a problem for me. I don't accept sola scriptura. Show me that something CONTRADICTS the Bible, and is not merely absent, and you'll have my attention.
I did read your post and thought I replied appropriately but I’ll go over it again.

Why not reiterate what I have already “said?” I need too because you don’t seem to pay any attention to it the first time through.

You are trying to use the “Argument from Silence” rationale; absence of an issue does not condone the practice; in my opinion the practice is condemned because it is not addressed.

Many RC doctrines ("traditions") contradict the Bible. Do you really need a list?

How about just one? Who can forgive sins?

(6) ”But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."
(6) Now some scribes were sitting there, arguing among themselves, (7) "Why does this man talk this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (8) At once, Jesus knew in his spirit what they were saying to themselves. He said to them, "Why are you arguing about such things among yourselves? (9) Which is easier: to say to the paralyzed man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, pick up your cot, and walk'? (10) But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Compare with Luke 5:21-24
(24) “That is why I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it and it will be yours. (25) "Whenever you stand up to pray, forgive whatever you have against anyone, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your sins. (26) But if you do not forgive, your Father in heaven will not forgive your sins."
Do you need a priest to tell you your sins are forgiven when Jesus says “believe that you have received it and it will be yours.”

(9) If we make it our habit to confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us those sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John doesn’t say you can’t confess your sins to a priest, so through “silence” he is saying it is O.K. right? Get real!

I see this one coming:

(16) Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
James is not saying to tell others your sins but to “confess your sins to one another” or clearer, “I’m sorry I sinned against you, forgive me.”

(5) "And whenever you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people. Truly I tell you, they have their full reward! (6) But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (7) "When you are praying, don't say meaningless words like the gentiles do, for they think they will be heard because of their wordiness. (8) Don't be like them, because your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Do I have your attention yet?
This is of course why I said the real question at hand is over an authoritative Church. As a Catholic, I hold Sacred Scripture to be inspired, inerrant and infallible. Dogma and practice may never contradict Scripture, although they often may not be found in scripture. Absence and contradiction are two different things. The Bible is a source of authority, but not the final authority.

This is essentially and argument over sola scriptura. If the Bible is the final authority, then you are quite right that we should keep our method of baptism (and any number of other things) within the paramaters we can deduce from scipture. However, I don't believe in sola scriptura. I believe that Christ established a visible, authoritative church, led by the Holy Spirit.
As far as I’m concerned, it is.
To return to the Didache, let's put aside the question over whether or not the conclusions therein are true. The fact remains that the problems contained therein are real. Early Christians needed to know what to do when a river or a pond or some other body of water was not available. I believe the Holy Spirit led the Church into the truth that pouring was a valid way to administer the sacrament. After all, GOD defines the sacraments, and he himself is not bound by them. Which is why, though we both believe baptism is neccessary, the thief on the cross was still saved. The Holy Spirit lead the Church into the sacraments as God has set them. When I say the Church has the authority to define when a sacrament is and isn't valid, what I really mean is by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church is discerning what is valid in the eyes of God.
Here you are taking a heavily edited document and attempting to make it authoritative. The edits to the Didache cannot be traced back to the original document.

(1) Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God, (2) so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.God gave no single person (or group) "authority" in the Church. There was no "authority structure" in the Church of the first century and none can be gleaned from scripture. All churches were independent units, the only central authority being JC. The only evidence of such "structure" is RC tradition and contradicting ECF writings.

[Sir Gimli]

"Many RC doctrines ("traditions") contradict the Bible. Do you really need a list?

How about just one? Who can forgive sins?"

The obvious answer is God. God is the ONLY one who can forgive sins. Now let's read how God forgives sins, John 20:22-23 "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Recieve the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.'"

Christ Jesus gave (as you say) RCC the power to gorgive sins through the Holy Spirit. You can also see other passages that support this: 2 Corinthians 5:18, James5:16, and Matthew 18:18

[VFarris01]

"Many RC doctrines ("traditions") contradict the Bible. Do you really need a list?

How about just one? Who can forgive sins?"
The obvious answer is God. God is the ONLY one who can forgive sins. Now let's read how God forgives sins, John 20:22-23 "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Recieve the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.'"

Christ Jesus gave (as you say) RCC the power to gorgive sins through the Holy Spirit. You can also see other passages that support this: 2 Corinthians 5:18, James5:16, and Matthew 18:18.
Bingo! God is the only one who can forgive sins.

I never said JC gave the RCC the power to forgive sins through any medium.

I’m sure your verse cites are meant to convey some authority through the myth of “Apostolic Succesion,” however, this is not the case.

Wouldn’t you agree, all who are saved have received the Holy Spirit?

The Apostles were the first Jesus gave the preogative to forgive sins; However, we all have the ability to forgive sins through the HS don’t we?

(21) Then Peter came up and asked him, "Lord, how many times may my brother sin against me and I have to forgive him? Seven times?" (22) Jesus said to him, "I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!(26) But if you do not forgive, your Father in heaven will not forgive your sins."
Compare to John 20:23.

Don’t we all have the choice of forgiving or not forgiving sins?

Consider:

(15) "If your brother sins against you, go and confront him while the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. (16) But if he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that 'every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' (17) If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. If he also ignores the congregation, regard him as a gentile and a tax collector. (18) "Truly I tell you, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven. (19) Furthermore, truly I tell you that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (20) For where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them." (21) Then Peter came up and asked him, "Lord, how many times may my brother sin against me and I have to forgive him? Seven times?" (22) Jesus said to him, "I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!

The question remains; why is a priest necessary?

So the casual reader need not search:

(21) Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." (22) When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. (23) If you forgive people's sins, they are forgiven. If you retain people's sins, they are retained."(24) That is why I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it and it will be yours. (25) "Whenever you stand up to pray, forgive whatever you have against anyone, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your sins. (26) But if you do not forgive, your Father in heaven will not forgive your sins."(14) The love of Christ controls us, for we are convinced of this: that one person died for all people; therefore, all people have died. (15) He died for all people, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for the one who died and rose for them. (16) So then, from now on we do not think of anyone from a human point of view. Even if we did think of Christ from a human point of view, we don't think of him that way any more. (17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have disappeared, and-look!-all things have become new! (18) All of this comes from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. (19) For in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their sins against them, and he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (20) Therefore, we are Christ's representatives, as though God were pleading through us. We plead on Christ's behalf: "Be reconciled to God!" (21) God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become God's righteousness in him.(16) Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

[Sir Gimli]

Your Roman Catholic Catechism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Roman Catholic church, since she claims that she is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word.

Since Romanism disagrees with clear Bible teachings on many matters, than Roman Catholics who obey Rome are actually obeying and listening to Satan and not to God. "Thy word is true from the beginning and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160). The written Scriptures plainly state that they alone are the Word of God. "...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Religious sacraments of Romanism do not save. Religious works do not save. It is true that a real Christian will do good works. Of course they will do good works. Every true Christian I know helps the poor for example, but they do not do that to "earn" or "keep" their salvation. True Christians do not submit to infant Baptism to "earn" salvation. True Christians do not participate in the Roman doctrine of confirmation to earn or keep salvation. True Christians do not participate in transubstantiation to earn or keep slavation. The Word of God and the teachings of Catholicism are diametrically opposed on numerous doctrines. Will you continue to side with the traditions of sinful fallible men, or will you side with the Word of God?

True Christians believe and obey the Word of God, because it is true and it is God's revelation of who He is and what He has done for us.
Excuse me Jude, but it's not the pope guaranting what he says is true (on matters of faith and morals) it's the Holy Spirit!!

For being a fall-away Catholic you should know that!

Plus, no where in the Bible does it say Bible alone is the sole source of revelation. RATHER! It teaches that traditions are to be observe. Second Thessalonians 2:15 says, " Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you wre taught, either by an oral statement of by a letter of ours."

"Tradition" means to "pass on". The early Christians passed on the faith orally before it was written down.

See also these verses: John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

[VFarris01]

Greetings Friends,
Excuse me Jude, but it's not the pope guaranting what he says is true (on matters of faith and morals) it's the Holy Spirit!!
I don’t recall reading anywhere the Pope was the final authority on anything, Holy Spirit or otherwise, except rampant corruption. History teaches us cults have one thing in common, extreme sleaze at the top. I’m sorry G., there is no precident on “infallibility” in the Bible.
Plus, no where in the Bible does it say Bible alone is the sole source of revelation. RATHER! It teaches that traditions are to be observe. Second Thessalonians 2:15 says, " Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you wre taught, either by an oral statement of by a letter of ours."
Ok, I can play this game; no where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is not the sole source of revelation. The “Argument from Silence” has been put to pasture. But who am I to say, the RCC “assembled” the NT and have declared there is no other inspired documents worthy of inclusion in the Bible, threfore, tradition starts with Genesis and stops with Revelation.
"Tradition" means to "pass on". The early Christians passed on the faith orally before it was written down.
Quite true. The Bible contains no instructions concerning purgatory, infant baptism, sprinkling (pouring), papal infallibility, the rosary, veneration of saints, veneration of Mary, the list goes on and on. There are no other traditions (instructions, ordinances) to pass on except those found in the Bible.
See also these verses: John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
The Apostles didn’t really have all that much to teach except the Gospel. They wrote down what needed to be passed on concerning salvation from the lessons they learned from JC.

For those following along:

(15) Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. (16) He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable (Unscrupulous? VF01) people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. (Might Peter be predicting the abuses of the RCC? Remember now, the RCC DOES NOT yet exist, only the Church founded on and by JC. VF01) (17) And so, dear friends, since you already know these things, continually be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of lawless people, lest you fall from your secure position. (18) Instead, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory belongs to him both now and on that eternal day! Amen.

(5) May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. (6) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is living in idleness and not living according to the tradition that they received from us. (7) For you yourselves know what you must do to imitate us. We did not live in idleness among you.

G3862 is translated several ways. The ISV uses tradition whereas the KJV uses ordinance in a number of verses, as does the DRB.

G3862 παράδοσις paradosis par-ad'-os-is From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.

G3860 παραδίδωμι paradido¯mi par-ad-id'-o-mee From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, yield up, intrust, transmit: - betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

G3844 παρά para par-ah' A primary preposition; properly near, that is, (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local [especially beyond or opposed to] or causal [on account of]). In compounds it retains the same variety of application: - above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give [such things as they], + that [she] had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side . . . by, in the sight of, than, [there-] fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

G1325 δίδωμι dido¯mi did'-o-mee A prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an alternate in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection): - adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+ with the hand), strike (+ with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.

(24) This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them down. We know that his testimony is true. (25) Of course, Jesus also did many other things, and I suppose that if every one of them were written down the world couldn't contain the books that would be written.
(1) Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. (2) I praise you for remembering me in everything and for carefully following the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.

[romepunk]

in my opinion the practice is condemned because it is not addressed.

And this is what I think is blatantly illogical. The Bible is not an exhaustive handbook of Church practices.




Many RC doctrines ("traditions") contradict the Bible. Do you really need a list?

I've seen "the list" before, thank you. It never quite delivers.


How about just one? Who can forgive sins?

God.



Do you need a priest to tell you your sins are forgiven when Jesus says “believe that you have received it and it will be yours.”


...

John doesn’t say you can’t confess your sins to a priest, so through “silence” he is saying it is O.K. right? Get real!

Didn't say that. Contrary to your assertion. I made no "argument from silence" concerning baptism. We both agree baptism is mandated in the Bible. We both believe immersion is how it was performed in Biblical passages. But I don't believe that means immersion is the only way it can be performed. That's why I keep asserting, again and again, that the authority of the Church to decide when a sacrament has and hasn't been validly administered is the real question here. That isn't an argument from silence.

Confession is another sacrament altogether. By the way, John has something interesting to say about it:

C 20, V 21-23

21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." I see this one coming

Good.


(16) Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
James is not saying to tell others your sins but to “confess your sins to one another” or clearer, “I’m sorry I sinned against you, forgive me.”

And I thought it was us wacky Catholics that ignored the plain meaning of Scripture.


(5) "And whenever you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people. Truly I tell you, they have their full reward! (6) But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (7) "When you are praying, don't say meaningless words like the gentiles do, for they think they will be heard because of their wordiness. (8) Don't be like them, because your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Do I have your attention yet?

Not really.What exactly does this verse have to do with the confession?


Here you are taking a heavily edited document and attempting to make it authoritative.

No I'm not! That was the point of my whole argument. I said to put aside the question of whether its conclusions are true or not. It bears witness to a real problem in the Church, proof that the Bible is not an exhaustive handbook on Church practices.


(1) Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God, (2) so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

God gave no single person (or group) "authority" in the Church. There was no "authority structure" in the Church of the first century and none can be gleaned from scripture. All churches were independent units, the only central authority being JC. The only evidence of such "structure" is RC tradition and contradicting ECF writings.
Read the rest of the chapter. This is about secular authority. Why do you think he says to keep paying your taxes?

[romepunk]

Concerning your reply to Gimli on the same verse I quoted:

Yes we all have the power to forgive eachother of those sins committed against ourselves. For instance, if I punch a man, that man can forgive me for punching him, and vice versa. Furthermore, If I am not charitable in my forgiveness of others, God has no reason to be charitable with me. This is what is implied in the verses you supplied to counter the claim that the apostles were given some special authority to forgive sins. But the verse cited by Gimli and myself, simply doesn't say the same thing. I don't believe it is necessary or proper to collapse the mandate given to the apostles with every other verse on forgiveness in the NT. I believe it is obvious the apostles were given a special authority to forgive sins, one in which the HS worked through them to forgive sins on God's behalf. I wouldn't try to extract the sacrament of confession as it exists todat out of this verse alone. The sacrament of confession has developed over the centuries. It is not exercised the same way today in the RCC as it was in the first few centuries. And EO and RCC both conduct the sacrament differently I believe, though both recogonize the other to be valid.

[VFarris01]

Greeting Good Friends,in my opinion the practice is condemned because it is not addressedAnd this is what I think is blatantly illogical. The Bible is not an exhaustive handbook of Church practices.Yes, it is. The Bible contains absolutely EVERYTHING we need to know concerning salvation. The Bible contains absolutely EVERYTHING we need to know concerning Christian worship. All of the “traditions” of the RCC are unscriptural “fluff.”

Don’t you think if God (JC, the Holy Spirit) had wanted us to pray in front of statues He (They) would not have given us:



(4) You are not to make an image or picture of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters under the earth: (5) You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters; (6) And I will have mercy through a thousand generations on those who have love for me and keep my laws.

Oh, I am sorry, you do not “worship” the images you “venerate” them. Worship and venerate mean essentially the same thing; they share many synonyms in common. I suppose the “leadership” of the RCC thinks if they do not use the word “worship” to describe what they are doing, they are not really worshiping the image (see 2 Peter 3:16).

The Bible IS an exhaustive handbook on Church practices.

I will respond to the rest of your post later. Sorry for the delay.

[VFarris01]

Continuing where I left off...Many RC doctrines ("traditions") contradict the Bible. Do you really need a list?I've seen "the list" before, thank you. It never quite delivers.If the RCC says veneration of images does not contradict the Bible then the Bible is not contradicted regardless of the meaning of words. The list is long my friend.Do you need a priest to tell you your sins are forgiven when Jesus says “believe that you have received it and it will be yours.”



John doesn’t say you can’t confess your sins to a priest, so through “silence” he is saying it is O.K. right? Get real!Didn't say that. Contrary to your assertion. I made no "argument from silence" concerning baptism. We both agree baptism is mandated in the Bible. We both believe immersion is how it was performed in Biblical passages. But I don't believe that means immersion is the only way it can be performed. That's why I keep asserting, again and again, that the authority of the Church to decide when a sacrament has and hasn't been validly administered is the real question here. That isn't an argument from silence.You are ignoring the question by changing the subject.

As you know, an “Argument from Silence” is invalid. Therefore, we cannot conclude a “central” church has been given authority to decide the validity of anything. Without Biblical evidence we can only conclude JC NEVER gave anyone authority to change anything as documented in the Bible.



We agree mostly about baptism, perhaps you might consider:

(21) Baptism, which is symbolized by that water (the earth was completely covered, according to “tradition,” VF01), now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (22) who has gone to heaven and is at the right hand of God, where angels, authorities, and powers have been made subject to him.

Please note Peter says “body” and not head, hands, feet, elbows, or groin.

Excuse me... I need another break.

[VFarris01]

Continuing again where I left off:

You have yet to answer my question. Why is a priest necessary for one to confess sins?Confession is another sacrament altogether. By the way, John has something interesting to say about it:


John 20:21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."You cannot limit JC to John 20:21-23. True, JC is speaking to the Apostles in this verse. However, JC is speaking to the Apostles and other Disciples in Matthew 18:15-22 when He says the same thing.



Does JC leave out Thomas in John 20:21-23, cf v24 and not in Matthews account?



The Bible MUST be taken as a whole.Let me put it this way: each of the individual books of the Bible is a final authority. I think you would agree with that. But none of them is the final authority.This is incorrect. Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority. ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions. For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”). Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC. EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).I see this one coming.Good.

(16) Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

James is not saying to tell others your sins but to “confess your sins to one another” or clearer, “I’m sorry I sinned against you, forgive me.”And I thought it was us wacky Catholics that ignored the plain meaning of Scripture.You are right; plain English is plain English. There is no reason to not interpret James 5:15 the way I did.



The question still remains. Why is a priest necessary for one to confess sins?Do I have your attention yet?Not really. What exactly does this verse (Matthew 5:6-8, VF01) have to do with the confession?I got a little carried away and added how the RCC has changed His ordinance concerning how to pray too. Sorry.

Now really, do I have your attention yet?

[VFarris01]

Here you are taking a heavily edited document (the Didache, VF01) and attempting to make it authoritative.No I'm not! That was the point of my whole argument. I said to put aside the question of whether its conclusions are true or not. It bears witness to a real problem in the Church, proof that the Bible is not an exhaustive handbook on Church practices.The Didache “bears witness” to nothing. Convenient how you left out the most important sentence in my respose to the Didache: “The edits to the Didache cannot be traced back to the original document.” Without a petigree the Didache is worthless as proof of anything.

God gave no single person (or group) "authority" in the Church. There was no "authority structure" in the Church of the first century and none can be gleaned from scripture. All churches were independent units, the only central authority being JC. The only evidence of such "structure" is RC tradition and contradicting ECF writings.Read the rest of the chapter. This is about secular authority. Why do you think he says to keep paying your taxes?I am having a difficult time with your objection to Romans 13. I’m not sure it was this thread or either “The Apostles and their Followers were Catholics!!!! (Isn't it astonishing???)” or the “Matthew 16:13-20” threads where a RC used the same verses and Matthew 22:21 to justify the authority of the RCC to which I made the same objection.


For the record then, do you agree there is no scriptural justification for a central “authority structure” within the Church established by and founded on JC?

As you know, an “Argument from Silence” is invalid. Therefore, we cannot conclude a “central” church has been given authority to decide the validity of anything. Without Biblical evidence we can only conclude JC NEVER gave anyone authority to change anything as documented in the Bible.

[VFarris01]

Pay attention here, this response is different...
Concerning your reply to Gimli on the same verse I quoted:You cannot limit JC to John 20:21-23. True, JC is speaking to the Apostles in this verse. However, JC is speaking to the Apostles and other Disciples in Matthew 18:15-22 when He says the same thing.

Does JC leave out Thomas in John 20:21-23, cf v24 and not in Matthews account?

Since the two accounts are so similar one can only conclude the authors of Matthew and John are documenting the same incident.

This is precisely why "The Bible MUST be taken as a whole."

(16)He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

To the credit of the people of Berea:

These people (those in Berea, VF) were more receptive than those in Thessalonica. They were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so.

Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority. ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions. For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”). Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC. EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).

Have you noticed how much I love to repeat myself?

[Pilgrim]

Just quickly on logic:

As you know, an “Argument from Silence” is invalid. Therefore, we cannot conclude a “central” church has been given authority to decide the validity of anything. Without Biblical evidence we can only conclude JC NEVER gave anyone authority to change anything as documented in the Bible.

VF, in the above statement you have made almose the exact same fallacy as what you accuse RP of. Based on silence you can not make a conclusion one way or another, especially given the fact that Luke writes to Theophilus that what Jesus said, and the stories of Jesus far exceed what is written down. (One might make a pretty good statement of advice to be careful about ideas not explicit in scripture but then again scripture does give that caveat when we are told "to test all these things.")

It must be pointed out again that this idea of 'sola scriptura' is not in fact a doctrine that is taught in scripture. Am I the only one who sees the great contradiction and irony in the fact that those who insist on sola scriptura are using a system that defies their own requirments for setting doctrine?

The other thing that really rubs me wrong is the fact that "sola scriptura" makes scripture (the written word) into an idol of sorts by giving it position above the Living Word, Christ.

But let's take the idea of 'sola scriptura' as a given. This means VF that you must cease to teach your theology and faith by means of the computer and the internet because Christ gave clear instruction to the disciples about going out physically to teach the gospel, First there, then Judea Samaria and the rest of the world. He gives no instruction as to the use of electronic means of spreading the Gospel or teaching about faith. By your own measure, since Christ gave a specific instruction and example, and the mode you are now using is not included in that, you must stop now or consider yourself outside the will of God.

[AVmetro]

Reminder: Please refrain from back to back posting. Refer to the forum rules for further details. Thank you. -AV

[VFarris01]

Just quickly on logic:
As you know, an “Argument from Silence” is invalid. Therefore, we cannot conclude a “central” church has been given authority to decide the validity of anything. Without Biblical evidence we can only conclude JC NEVER gave anyone authority to change anything as documented in the Bible.
VF, in the above statement you have made almose the exact same fallacy as what you accuse RP of. Based on silence you can not make a conclusion one way or another, especially given the fact that Luke writes to Theophilus that what Jesus said, and the stories of Jesus far exceed what is written down. (One might make a pretty good statement of advice to be careful about ideas not explicit in scripture but then again scripture does give that caveat when we are told "to test all these things.")
I have made no fallacy.

Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians (Thessalonians 5:21) is instructing them to subject everything submitted to you to be believed to be properly tested (ie is it scriptural?). The Greek word used is G1381, δοκιμάζετε (dokimazete), is one that is properly applicable to metals, referring to the art of the assayer, by which the true nature and value of the metal is tested. The meaning here is they were to carefully examine everything proposed for their belief. They were not to receive it on trust or to take it on assertion or to believe it because it was urged with vehemence, zeal, or plausibility. In the various opinions and doctrines submitted to them for adoption, they were to apply the appropriate tests from reason and the written word of God, the Scriptures, and what they found to be true they were to embrace; what was false they were to reject. Christianity does not require people to disregard their reason, or to be naive. It does not expect them to believe anything because others say it is so. It does not make it a duty to receive as undoubted truth all that synods and councils have decreed; or all advanced by the ministers of religion. It is, more than any other form of religion, the friend of free inquiry, and would lead people everywhere to understand the reason of the opinions which they contemplate; compare Act 17:11-12, 2 Corinthians 3:5, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1.
It must be pointed out again that this idea of 'sola scriptura' is not in fact a doctrine that is taught in scripture. Am I the only one who sees the great contradiction and irony in the fact that those who insist on sola scriptura are using a system that defies their own requirments for setting doctrine?
Actually, I would say the Bible does allow for the idea of “scriptures only” considering my previous reply and what follows.

Consider what the writer of Acts 17:11 has to say concerning the Bereans, “They were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so,” (ISV) Now I know “the Scriptures” is in reference to the OT; is not the verse saying, "anything contrary, including anything not in scripture, should be rejected?" We have the written word of God. No other writing or oral “tradition” has been deemed worthy of this distinction. Would you not agree if other writings or oral “traditions” were of God they would be included in the Bible?
The other thing that really rubs me wrong is the fact that "sola scriptura" makes scripture (the written word) into an idol of sorts by giving it position above the Living Word, Christ.
Agreed, JC is “above” the Bible. However, since God (JC and the Holy Spirit) has given us nothing else as a guide, the Bible must stand alone. In the absense of JC in the flesh to guide us, the Bible is all we really have is it not?.
But let's take the idea of 'sola scriptura' as a given. This means VF that you must cease to teach your theology and faith by means of the computer and the internet because Christ gave clear instruction to the disciples about going out physically to teach the gospel, First there, then Judea Samaria and the rest of the world. He gives no instruction as to the use of electronic means of spreading the Gospel or teaching about faith. By your own measure, since Christ gave a specific instruction and example, and the mode you are now using is not included in that, you must stop now or consider yourself outside the will of God.
Well… Pilgrim… you are committing an “Appeal to Ridicule” here. JC gave specific instructions on what to do; “Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation,” (John 16:15 ISV). JC did not give specific instructions on how to get to “the whole creation,” be it walk, trot, run, ride a donkey, horse, chariot, cart or any of the other forms of moving from place-to-place available in the first century; JC left this up to the Apostles to decide. The computer is simply another means to “Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” is it not?

[Sir Gimli]

hey guys, let we got to stick to one subject or we're going to go nowhere jumping topics like we have been doing. VFarris, name the subject and then let us stick to it.

Side Q: How do you get a picture shown?

[VFarris01]

Everyone,

Sir G. is right concerning this thread. Might we divide up some of the topics to separate discussions. I myself seem to be discussing the same topic on two threads... this one and "The Apostles were Catholic..."

RP, would you like to pick the topic?

Vic

[romepunk]

VF,

Okay, we're going in circles here. We take fundamentally different approaches to scripture, and you don't seem to be taking that into consideration when you accuse me of logical fallacies (namely, an argument from silence.)

VF said: Yes, it is. The Bible contains absolutely EVERYTHING we need to know concerning salvation. The Bible contains absolutely EVERYTHING we need to know concerning Christian worship. All of the “traditions” of the RCC are unscriptural “fluff.”

I don't believe this, and you've given me no reason to believe this. You keep calling my justification of Catholic doctrine an argument from silence because you are analyzing it from your view of scripture and not mine. I don't believe in sola scriptura. I believe that sacred scripture and sacred tradition comprise a unified deposit of faith. I don't justify my views with the idea that the deposit of faith is silent on them, I justify them with a part of the deposit of faith which you reject.

VF said: You are ignoring the question by changing the subject.

As you know, an “Argument from Silence” is invalid. Therefore, we cannot conclude a “central” church has been given authority to decide the validity of anything. Without Biblical evidence we can only conclude JC NEVER gave anyone authority to change anything as documented in the Bible.

I must reiterate, the Church changed nothing, but merely decided when baptism is valid. And once again, your critiquing me from the perspective of sola scriptura, which you haven't proven.

VF said: The Didache “bears witness” to nothing. Convenient how you left out the most important sentence in my respose to the Didache: “The edits to the Didache cannot be traced back to the original document.” Without a petigree the Didache is worthless as proof of anything.

And you're still tapdancing around my main argument. The writer(s) of the Didache simply says that the Bible seems to teach that Baptism involves imerssion in a natural body of water, like a river. What do you do when a natural body of water isn't around. It doesn't matter when this question was asked, the point is it was asked and it is a valid question. Earlier in this thread you asked me if the baptistry in my Church was big enough for immersion. But the Bible doesn't say: "Lo, ye shall go forth and build churches, and therein shall be baptistry pools deep enough for full immersion. Thus speaketh the Lord." Do you approve of using man-made pools for baptizing, VF? That's not explicitly in the Bible. The Bible uses natural bodies of water. The Didache points out the problem of what do you do when one isn't available.

Okay, now onto your other questions:

VF said: Oh, I am sorry, you do not “worship” the images you “venerate” them. Worship and venerate mean essentially the same thing; they share many synonyms in common. I suppose the “leadership” of the RCC thinks if they do not use the word “worship” to describe what they are doing, they are not really worshiping the image (see 2 Peter 3:16).

They don't mean the same thing. If we worshipped something, we'd let you know, whether we thought people would be offended or not. Veneration is the honor given an image because it is a symbol of a sacred reality. The symbol should be venerated because we either venerate or worship the reality. You know those crazy New York artists that do weird things like place crucifixes in jars of urine? Do you think that is blasphemous and sacreligous? Then you are venerating a crucifix my friend. You know that it represents Christ, who you worship, therefore the image should be treated with honor.

VF said: You have yet to answer my question. Why is a priest necessary for one to confess sins?

Why is baptism neccesary? We believe Christ commanded it. God can forgive sins without working through a priest, just as he can clean us of original sin without using water, but God has mandated that certain things be done in certain ways. God likes to work through his Church. Who are we to judge him?

VF said: Since the two accounts are so similar one can only conclude the authors of Matthew and John are documenting the same incident.

No, they're quite different. Matthew's account is pre-ressurection, John's is post.

VF said: To the credit of the people of Berea...

Of course, the NT hadn't been written yet during these incidents, so I'm not sure how they can prove sola scriptura.

VF said: Sir G. is right concerning this thread. Might we divide up some of the topics to separate discussions. I myself seem to be discussing the same topic on two threads... this one and "The Apostles were Catholic..."

Ditto.

RP, would you like to pick the topic?

Every disagreement we have (baptism, confession, veneration of images) ultimately comes down to the question of whether or not solo scriptura is true. I think the topic should be sola scriptura.

[Sir Gimli]

Then Sola Scriptura is the subject.

Arguement: Whether is Sola Scriptura is true.

Catholic-Sir Gimli/Romepunk view point: Sola Scriptura is false

Protestant-VFarris/Jude view point : Sola Scriptura is true

VFarris please begin by giving proof of your claim.

[Jude3b]

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever..." (I Peter 1:25)

"... the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lets he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)


Listen to this Roman Catholics: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatiians 1:8). Rome has "another gospel" which is not the Gospel that we find in the New Testament. Therefore Romanism is accursed!

[VFarris01]

Then Sola Scriptura is the subject.

Arguement: Whether is Sola Scriptura is true.

Catholic-Sir Gimli/Romepunk view point: Sola Scriptura is false

Protestant-VFarris/Jude view point : Sola Scriptura is true

VFarris please begin by giving proof of your claim.I do not wish to debate a subject having no relevance. Nor do I wish to debate with those who continually misrepresent my position with half-quotes and continuous interrogotary.

[Pilgrim]

With all due respect it is relevent. Your whole understanding is based upon a particular doctirne of scriptural interpretation. You can not move that off the table simply because you can't defend it.

Your argument against parts of Roman Catholicism is based on your understanding of how scripture is viewed and how it is interpreted. For someone with an opposing view to call into question your apriori is totally with in bounds. If they can show that your apriori is false or inconsistant then the rest of your argument fails on its face. That is the very heart of debate and logic.

[VFarris01]

Your whole understanding is based upon a particular doctirne of scriptural interpretation. You can not move that off the table simply because you can't defend it.

Your argument against parts of Roman Catholicism is based on your understanding of how scripture is viewed and how it is interpreted. For someone with an opposing view to call into question your apriori is totally with in bounds. If they can show that your apriori is false or inconsistant then the rest of your argument fails on its face. That is the very heart of debate and logic.I suppose you are addressing me.

I simply do not wish to or have the time to discuss this subject. Besides this, I thought it might be a discussion, not a debate.

Your argument for Roman Catholicism is based on someone elses understanding of how scripture is viewed and how it is interpreted, not your own. Step up, be what God wants you to be, not what someone else thinks God wants you to be.

[Sir Gimli]

VFarris,

You must understand that us Catholics can't go just on any man's interpretion. If God made the Bible, then let God teach it through the Holy Spirit. So you ARE correct:
" Your argument for Roman Catholicism is based on someone elses understanding of how scripture is viewed and how it is interpreted, not your own."

We base our interpretion on God's interpretion through the Holy Spirit which guides the pope. Also, please don't take this thread to personal, Piligrim just used a bad choice of words.

God Bless and have a wonderful Easter Season,

Chester

[Jude3b]

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever..." (I Peter 1:25)

"... the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lets he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)


Listen to this Roman Catholics: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatiians 1:8). Rome has "another gospel" which is not the Gospel that we find in the New Testament. Therefore Romanism is accursed!

Consider these words from the Apostle Paul:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, bust as it is in truth, the word of God..." (I Thess. 2:13).
When Paul preached the Word of God to these people, it was not Roman Catholic doctrine because Catholicism didn't exist yet.

God's Word and the teachings of Roman Catholicism are diametrically opposed on many, many doctrines. Will you side with the words of God or the traditions of the Roman Catholic cult and fallible sinful men?

"... let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

[Pilgrim]

I suppose you are addressing me.

I simply do not wish to or have the time to discuss this subject. Besides this, I thought it might be a discussion, not a debate.

Fair enough, the tone of conversation and discussion is probably more effective in the long run. However, the fact that you are not mearly stating your opinions but are trying to show others to be wrong seems to indicate thay you are interested in more than polite conversation.

Be that as it may, you can't simply brush the issue off with a " I don't wish to discuss this." It would be aking to arguing that the sky is not blue because you don't want to talk about blue.

The fact is that your interpretation is based on a certain hermenuetic, a certain type of exegesis. Your interpretation is is the foundation for your understanding and your argument. If the method of interpretation can be shown to be faulty (and I submit that sola scriptura fails by its own standards) then the rest of your position follows. You must address the issue whether you wish to or not. If you don't then your points carry no weight.

Your argument for Roman Catholicism is based on someone elses understanding of how scripture is viewed and how it is interpreted, not your own.
You say that as if accountability in interpretation is a bad thing? What you are advocating is a sort of interprative relativism in which each person gets to decide for him or herself what scripture is saying. That would be silly and irresponsible because we know that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants of faith and teaching who have come before us. If we did not avail ourselves of the their knowledge and their teaching (which come from the gifts God gave them. You remember "some to be teachers etc") we would be egotisitical and we would not have the benefit of the community of faith which God has built.

Step up, be what God wants you to be, not what someone else thinks God wants you to be.

And that's just insulting. It comes across as a simple ad hom attack. Not being able to rationally defend your position you simply call my faith walk into question.

I submit to you that though I am painfully aware of my failings, I work hard every day, by the grace of the Living Word, Jesus, to be what God wants me to be.

[Jude3b]

Consider these words from the Apostle Paul:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, bust as it is in truth, the word of God..." (I Thess. 2:13).
When Paul preached the Word of God to these people, it was not Roman Catholic doctrine because Catholicism didn't exist yet.

God's Word and the teachings of Roman Catholicism are diametrically opposed on many, many doctrines. Will you side with the words of God or the traditions of the Roman Catholic cult and fallible sinful men?

"... let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:9)

Thus, when Roman Catholic doctrine contradicts God's written Word, it shows itself to be a false cult and beware because those who side against the Holy Scriptures will be "accursed."

Your decision will become critical as you read and discover that God's Word and the treachings of Roman Catholicism are diametrically opposed on numerous doctrines. Will you side with the Cultic Roman teachings of Romanism or obey the Word of God, by "coming out of her my people?"

[Pilgrim]

This thread is getting very tedious. I'll say it again: Roman Catholicism does not fit the definition of a cult. You need to go back and maybe open the dictionary and look it up.

Secondly, I side with the Living Word of God, Christ. If you want to live tied to the letter like a pharisee that is your choice but that mind st paints you with the same brush you paint the RCC with.

[Jude3b]

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:9)

Thus, when Roman Catholic doctrine contradicts God's written Word, it shows itself to be a false cult and beware because those who side against the Holy Scriptures will be "accursed."

Your decision will become critical as you read and discover that God's Word and the treachings of Roman Catholicism are diametrically opposed on numerous doctrines. Will you side with the Cultic Roman teachings of Romanism or obey the Word of God, by "coming out of her my people?"

Your Real Enemy is Satan, not the Roman Catholic Religion! He hates the Roman Catholic person and wants them to burn in hell forever:
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (I Peter 5:8)

The devil knows that to devour you he must keep you from obeying God's Word.

Here's his plan: First, he creates a religion, like Roman Catholicim with all the religious trappings to make it appear authentic. Next, he formulates unbiblical doctrines that members must perform.. People become so busy performing these rules they rarely find Christ. Unfortunately, this plan has been working for centuries. Don't underestimate Satan. He is a master deceiver. (see Rev. 12:9).

Please don't let the devil deceive you any longer. He is your real enemy and he is using religion to keep you away from the true Jesus Christ, that we read about in the Word of God. Please don't let him keep you away any longer. Turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set your free. God bless you as you experience true salvation in Jesus Christ: (Proverbs 3:5-6)

[Amazing Rando]

:lolo:

[Sir Gimli]

Your Real Enemy is Satan, not the Roman Catholic Religion! He hates the Roman Catholic person and wants them to burn in hell forever:
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (I Peter 5:8)

The devil knows that to devour you he must keep you from obeying God's Word.

Here's his plan: First, he creates a religion, like Roman Catholicim with all the religious trappings to make it appear authentic. Next, he formulates unbiblical doctrines that members must perform.. People become so busy performing these rules they rarely find Christ. Unfortunately, this plan has been working for centuries. Don't underestimate Satan. He is a master deceiver. (see Rev. 12:9).

Please don't let the devil deceive you any longer. He is your real enemy and he is using religion to keep you away from the true Jesus Christ, that we read about in the Word of God. Please don't let him keep you away any longer. Turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set your free. God bless you as you experience true salvation in Jesus Christ: (Proverbs 3:5-6)
For one thing Jude, you can't support that. For another, you have to look at the situation in another view point. If, as you say, that the Church has been misled all through the centuries, then are you saying that the "Reformers" like Luther and Calvin brought the "Truth"?

[Pilgrim]

I get the feeling Jude, that you are copying text from somewhere else. Please site your sources.

[Jude3b]

I usually quote the King James Bible, sometimes New King James and sometimes New American Standard

[twohumble]

This chart from http://www.carm.org/catholic/grid.htm shows a lot of truth to your statement.

The chart also has inaccuracies. For instance, the Catholic Catechism clearly states that we are saved by "grace alone". I agree that some of the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church have gotten away from that concept, and many of their membership interpret salvation as needing works, but...the formal position of the RCC is "faith and grace alone".

The entire topic of this thread shows only one thing division of Gods church on Earth. If satan can entice believers to bicker over doctrinal differences, and make us all major in the minors, he has taken our focus off of what it should be on, and that is Jesus as our Lord, and His will in our lives. I find nothing in the RCC that detracts from that, and therefore to point out doctrinal errancy is only divisive, and destructive.

By the by, Catholics could easily respond by pointing out the problems with many of the various adultered protestant doctrines that do not correspond to scripture and call these branches of Gods church "cults" or "heretics", I just don't see that this is profitable, beneficial, or accurate. So, lets focus on "mere Christianity" as CS Lewis says, and spread the Gospel to those who don't know it.

God Bless

[Jude3b]

Consider these words from the Apostle Paul:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, bust as it is in truth, the word of God..." (I Thess. 2:13).
When Paul preached the Word of God to these people, it was not Roman Catholic doctrine because Catholicism didn't exist yet.

God's Word and the teachings of Roman Catholicism are diametrically opposed on many, many doctrines. Will you side with the words of God or the traditions of the Roman Catholic cult and fallible sinful men?

"... let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

God has given the church of God two witnesses: The Word and The Holy Spirit. He doesn't need a cultic group like Roman Catholicism and fallible men like the popes to speak to His Church, the body of Christ!

[twohumble]

God has given the church of God two witnesses: The Word and The Holy Spirit. He doesn't need a cultic group like Roman Catholicism and fallible men like the popes to speak to His Church, the body of Christ!

So your nature is revealed. You never were really "asking" if the RCC was a cult, you were attempting to be subtley subversive.

Your claim can be made just as strong for any and all present day protestant fractions. It is never the Church of men, but the Object of the Church that is the issue. If you make this about men, you have missed the point.

[Jude3b]

So your nature is revealed. You never were really "asking" if the RCC was a cult, you were attempting to be subtley subversive.

Your claim can be made just as strong for any and all present day protestant fractions. It is never the Church of men, but the Object of the Church that is the issue. If you make this about men, you have missed the point.

This thread is about whether or not Roman Catholicism is a false cult or not. Did you want to start a thread about Protestant groups?

[twohumble]

This thread is about whether or not Roman Catholicism is a false cult or not. Did you want to start a thread about Protestant groups?

Have you read the NiceneCreed? It is recited at my church, and when I went to a Catholic wedding, it was recited there as well. Funny how the core beliefs are identical to all of Christianity. Yet, you want to cause divisions within the Body of Believers,.. why? If you want to know if the RCC is a cult, I think that has been well discussed on this thread. If you are all about being divisive, then you need to ask yourself if you love the argument more than you love Gods people.

In any instance where you find a religion denying Christ, I think you can be sure they should not be called "Christian"..you cannot put the RCC in that class by any stretch.

[Jude3b]

Have you read the NiceneCreed? It is recited at my church, and when I went to a Catholic wedding, it was recited there as well. Funny how the core beliefs are identical to all of Christianity. Yet, you want to cause divisions within the Body of Believers,.. why? If you want to know if the RCC is a cult, I think that has been well discussed on this thread. If you are all about being divisive, then you need to ask yourself if you love the argument more than you love Gods people.

In any instance where you find a religion denying Christ, I think you can be sure they should not be called "Christian"..you cannot put the RCC in that class by any stretch.

[Jude3b]

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, church tradition and the magisterium are just as much the Word of God as are written Scriptures: (see the Roman Catechism of 1994, Page 26, # 81)

Therefore, the Roman Catechism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Roman Catholic church, since according to Romanism, she is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word.

The Bible does not agree: See Psalm 119:160, Psalm 12:6-7; John 17:17; Rev. 22:18-19; Proverbs 30:5-6; Psalm 119:89; I Peter 1:25; Isaiah 40:8

When an organization does what Romanism has done, the Word of God states:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8)

God's Word is perfect and Romanism is acting like every false cult that preaches another gospel!

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul..." (Psalm 19:7)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1:23)

God's unchanging Word has always been the final authority, never the Cultic type Religious traditions of fallible sinful men: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8).

JESUS IS LORD, NOT ROMANISM! "... let God be true," (Romans 3:4)

Will you side with the Words of God of the the tradtions of fallible sinful men?

[Amazing Rando]

Have you read the NiceneCreed? It is recited at my church, and when I went to a Catholic wedding, it was recited there as well. Funny how the core beliefs are identical to all of Christianity. Yet, you want to cause divisions within the Body of Believers,.. why? If you want to know if the RCC is a cult, I think that has been well discussed on this thread. If you are all about being divisive, then you need to ask yourself if you love the argument more than you love Gods people.

In any instance where you find a religion denying Christ, I think you can be sure they should not be called "Christian"..you cannot put the RCC in that class by any stretch.

Excellent post, twohumble. You get some pearls for that! :teeth:

[twohumble]

Excellent post, twohumble. You get some pearls for that! :teeth:
Thanks Rando...When I read posts as those from Jude, I cannot help but be reminded of the Pharisees who claim to be better than the sinner. The claim of spiritual superiority is a trap the RCC has fallen into on occasion, but as soon as someone finds themself condemning them, they are in essence doing the exact same thing, they are in the same pit. Pride is a hard hole to dig out of.

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks Rando...When I read posts as those from Jude, I cannot help but be reminded of the Pharisees who claim to be better than the sinner. The claim of spiritual superiority is a trap the RCC has fallen into on occasion, but as soon as someone finds themself condemning them, they are in essence doing the exact same thing, they are in the same pit. Pride is a hard hole to dig out of.

Absolutely! While I don't agree with some of the RCC's beliefs and practices, the core of their faith is the very same as that of the average bible-thumping non-denominationalist American Christian!

I believe very strongly in something Augustine said in the 4th Century: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

[Jude3b]

Absolutely! While I don't agree with some of the RCC's beliefs and practices, the core of their faith is the very same as that of the average bible-thumping non-denominationalist American Christian!

I believe very strongly in something Augustine said in the 4th Century: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

The Roman Catholic religion has another Gospel. One is not saved by Faith plus religious works (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). If you guys think that a false Gospel is not an issue and that the Roman Catholic religion has the same core faith as a Bible believing Christian, you guys either know nothing about Romanism or nothing about the Bible. Which is it?

In all things love! Do you know that you do not love someone - by refusing to tell them the truth. You would let dear Roman Catholic people die and go to a devil's hell, because your not willing to share the true Gospel with them. Shame on you, if your really a Christian!

[twohumble]

The Roman Catholic religion has another Gospel. One is not saved by Faith plus religious works (Eph. 2: 8 & 9). If you guys think that a false Gospel is not an issue and that the Roman Catholic religion has the same core faith as a Bible believing Christian, you guys either know nothing about Romanism or nothing about the Bible. Which is it?

In all things love! Do you know that you do not love someone - by refusing to tell them the truth. You would let dear Roman Catholic people die and go to a devil's hell, because your not willing to share the true Gospel with them. Shame on you, if your really a Christian!

WOW....spiritual high ground to say the least!! Out of the catechism of their faith, I have read that they agree that faith alone saves. But, if you are correct, that they believe in "works" (which they and many other denominations preach must be present, as a sign of the fruits) how does this condemn them to a firey eternity? Is not faith in Christ sufficient? If Catholics profess Him to be lord, believe in the Resurrection, and bow to the will of the Triune God, what is the act they do that will condemn them?

Their Gospel is the same as your Jude, you are entering into a realm of spiritual judgement of anothers salvation that is left for God alone. You have now even questioned the state of Grace of myself and Rando.

Pray that God lifts your anger toward others, and lets you deal with your differences in a much less divisive way. We are all members of the body of Christ, so, do not reject your bretheren.

[VFarris01]

(13)The LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets." (14) But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. (15) They despised his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers and the warnings that he gave them. They went after false idols and became false, and they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do like them. (16) And they abandoned all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made for themselves metal images of two calves; and they made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal.

[Amazing Rando]

WOW....spiritual high ground to say the least!! Out of the catechism of their faith, I have read that they agree that faith alone saves. But, if you are correct, that they believe in "works" (which they and many other denominations preach must be present, as a sign of the fruits) how does this condemn them to a firey eternity? Is not faith in Christ sufficient? If Catholics profess Him to be lord, believe in the Resurrection, and bow to the will of the Triune God, what is the act they do that will condemn them?

Their Gospel is the same as your Jude, you are entering into a realm of spiritual judgement of anothers salvation that is left for God alone. You have now even questioned the state of Grace of myself and Rando.

Pray that God lifts your anger toward others, and lets you deal with your differences in a much less divisive way. We are all members of the body of Christ, so, do not reject your bretheren.

Agreed. I'm not an expert in the RCC Catechism, but If I'm not mistaken, they agree (at least post-Vatican II anyway) that it is faith that saves. Would be nice to have a Catholic to clarify that for us.

[twohumble]

Agreed. I'm not an expert in the RCC Catechism, but If I'm not mistaken, they agree (at least post-Vatican II anyway) that it is faith that saves. Would be nice to have a Catholic to clarify that for us.
I have a copy of the official "Catholic Catechism" and under salvation, it says clearly that its by "faith"...unfortunately, they muddle their teaching with ritual that can be misunderstood to mean "required for salvation", but that is not the actual doctrine at all.

I have many Catholic friends, and been to a few confirmations. At these ceremony's its customary to have the "Bishop" attend. I was fortunate enough to engage the Bishop in conversation. He was bright, knowledgable, and espoused everything I would hold to be essential to salvation in great accord with scripture. Although the differences in doctrine certainly exist, they are not salvational issues at all.

[Amazing Rando]

I have a copy of the official "Catholic Catechism" and under salvation, it says clearly that its by "faith"...unfortunately, they muddle their teaching with ritual that can be misunderstood to mean "required for salvation", but that is not the actual doctrine at all.

I have many Catholic friends, and been to a few confirmations. At these ceremony's its customary to have the "Bishop" attend. I was fortunate enough to engage the Bishop in conversation. He was bright, knowledgable, and espoused everything I would hold to be essential to salvation in great accord with scripture. Although the differences in doctrine certainly exist, they are not salvational issues at all.

You betcha! And certainly, sometimes the RCC gets too legalistic and strays from the spirit of the gospel. But are we non-Catholics exempt from that? Far from it! We can get just as bad. :sad:

[spl_cadet]

I have a copy of the official "Catholic Catechism" and under salvation, it says clearly that its by "faith"...unfortunately, they muddle their teaching with ritual that can be misunderstood to mean "required for salvation", but that is not the actual doctrine at all.

I have many Catholic friends, and been to a few confirmations. At these ceremony's its customary to have the "Bishop" attend. I was fortunate enough to engage the Bishop in conversation. He was bright, knowledgable, and espoused everything I would hold to be essential to salvation in great accord with scripture. Although the differences in doctrine certainly exist, they are not salvational issues at all.

Not just customary, but it is required. The bishop is the one who does the confirming.

[Twilly Spree]

A monsenior will work too.

[twohumble]

Rando...it seems we have a couple of Catholics lurking on this thread and reading...thx for participating twilly, and spl_cadet. Far be it for me to respond to Jude for the Catholics, why dont you guys respond to his comments?

For Jude: Do you find it interesting that this mornings news reports the United Methodist church, following the wonderful Episcopal example, have ruled that a lesbian female minister is to be retained and not asked to step down? I believe that two distinct and clear scriptural teachings are totally ignored by this ruling by the Methodists. Should we now call them a cult? Should we say that their membership will burn? Wonder where your thoughts are on this.

Or maybe you would like to comment on the fact that a local couple were expelled from their Pentacostal Assembly of God church, for being seen by an associate Pastor, drinking a bottle of wine in a resteraunt. When they were questioned by the deacons of the church, they would not avow that drinking wine was a sin, and told them that they would not give up their "social wine", apperently, the deacons decided that this couple was 'lost' because they would not 'repent their wine drinking', so they were asked to leave. Interesting hu? Legalism kills the Spirits work.

[Amazing Rando]

Rando...it seems we have a couple of Catholics lurking on this thread and reading...thx for participating twilly, and spl_cadet. Far be it for me to respond to Jude for the Catholics, why dont you guys respond to his comments?

Yeah- I would be very interested to hear from an informed Catholic like Cadet exactly what the church's position on justification is.

For Jude: Do you find it interesting that this mornings news reports the United Methodist church, following the wonderful Episcopal example, have ruled that a lesbian female minister is to be retained and not asked to step down? I believe that two distinct and clear scriptural teachings are totally ignored by this ruling by the Methodists. Should we now call them a cult? Should we say that their membership will burn? Wonder where your thoughts are on this.

I'm a member of the UMC, and hopefully our general conference going on this week in Pittsburgh PA will resolve these issues in a manner consistent with Scriptural teaching. That's my prayer anyway.

Or maybe you would like to comment on the fact that a local couple were expelled from their Pentacostal Assembly of God church, for being seen by an associate Pastor, drinking a bottle of wine in a resteraunt. When they were questioned by the deacons of the church, they would not avow that drinking wine was a sin, and told them that they would not give up their "social wine", apperently, the deacons decided that this couple was 'lost' because they would not 'repent their wine drinking', so they were asked to leave. Interesting hu? Legalism kills the Spirits work.

Good example and thoughts! :yes:

[romepunk]

Yeah- I would be very interested to hear from an informed Catholic like Cadet exactly what the church's position on justification is.
I was never a big on the intracacies of soteriology, and while I understand the Catholic position, I would probably stumble through a formal debate. However there is a good book out there. It is a slim volume you should be able to pick up inexpensively from any Catholic bookstore, or maybe even check out from your local library. It's called The Salvation Controversy by Jimmy Akin. It is a nice, basic, to the point intro to the Catholic position and a critique of Calvinism. It shouldn't be considered an exhaustive textbook or a masterwork of apologetical Catholic theology, but it is a nice lay-accessible text.

[Jude3b]

I was never a big on the intracacies of soteriology, and while I understand the Catholic position, I would probably stumble through a formal debate. However there is a good book out there. It is a slim volume you should be able to pick up inexpensively from any Catholic bookstore, or maybe even check out from your local library. It's called The Salvation Controversy by Jimmy Akin. It is a nice, basic, to the point intro to the Catholic position and a critique of Calvinism. It shouldn't be considered an exhaustive textbook or a masterwork of apologetical Catholic theology, but it is a nice lay-accessible text.

Extra Biblical literature is something all cults have in common with Romanism!

[shunyadragon]

Many define a cult as any religious group that has as authority something added to the Bible. Revelation 22:18,19 pronounces the curse of God on any one who adds to the Word of God and the same to those who take away from the Word of God. We often talk about JW's, Mormons, etc. being cults. But doesn't Roman Catholicism do the same as them in adding to or taking away from the Word of God??? Isn't it thereby a false cult?
Sincerely, Jude 3b

The Roman Church (Catholic) did not add to the Bible, they determined what the bible would be and the basic traditional theology of almost all Christian churches. The protestants rebelled and took books out of the bible, so they would be considered cults by your definition.

[Jude3b]

The Roman Church (Catholic) did not add to the Bible, they determined what the bible would be and the basic traditional theology of almost all Christian churches. The protestants rebelled and took books out of the bible, so they would be considered cults by your definition.

Rome is famous for rewriting history. They sure got to you. To bad!

God gave us His Word. It wouldn't be the Word of God if a religion could give it to us! All the books of the Bible existed and were in common use, 150 years before the Roman Cult came into existence.

[twohumble]

Rome is famous for rewriting history. They sure got to you. To bad!

God gave us His Word. It wouldn't be the Word of God if a religion could give it to us! All the books of the Bible existed and were in common use, 150 years before the Roman Cult came into existence.
Jude, are you even familiar with the apocryphal texts? Do you know when they date? Do you know the criteria that the council used to decide if they belonged in the Bible?

From your post above, I think you don't. You just spread division and pharisitical attitudes. If the Catholic is the tax collector, and there is a Pharisee, just remember who Jesus said was closer to the Father between the two.

[Jude3b]

Jude, are you even familiar with the apocryphal texts? Do you know when they date? Do you know the criteria that the council used to decide if they belonged in the Bible?

From your post above, I think you don't. You just spread division and pharisitical attitudes. If the Catholic is the tax collector, and there is a Pharisee, just remember who Jesus said was closer to the Father between the two.

I've read
Rome's apocryphal books and they do not qualify as Scripture. They are not qualified to be part of the Bible and that is the reason they are not in the Bible. They do not meet the qualifications to be part of the Canon of Scripture. Rome adds Tradition, its own interpretation and the Apocrpha to the Word of God - all to its shame and ultimate destruction.

[twohumble]

I've read
Rome's apocryphal books and they do not qualify as Scripture. They are not qualified to be part of the Bible and that is the reason they are not in the Bible. They do not meet the qualifications to be part of the Canon of Scripture. Rome adds Tradition, its own interpretation and the Apocrpha to the Word of God - all to its shame and ultimate destruction.

What was the criteria the RCC used to include them? What was the reformers reasons to 'not' include them? What are the qualifications to be part of the canon? Do the apocryphal texts have added 'tradition'? What exactly do you know of this? Anything? It just appears you are spouting venom at the RCC and have no real knowledge of any of it.

[potato sundae]

What was the criteria the RCC used to include them? What was the reformers reasons to 'not' include them? What are the qualifications to be part of the canon? Do the apocryphal texts have added 'tradition'? What exactly do you know of this? Anything? It just appears you are spouting venom at the RCC and have no real knowledge of any of it.


he aint spittin' no venom buster. part of the cannon criteria included authorship...new testament books had to have been written by an apostle. the reformers rejected the apocryphal books (not all of them...luther has cited the book of enoch in some of his works) on that basis.

as far as the old testament goes, i have only some idea...old testament apochryphal books were rejected because authorship could not be known for sure, or the suspected author was not a prominent figure.

anyone feel free to correct me on this.

[twohumble]

he aint spittin' no venom buster. part of the cannon criteria included authorship...new testament books had to have been written by an apostle. the reformers rejected the apocryphal books (not all of them...luther has cited the book of enoch in some of his works) on that basis.

as far as the old testament goes, i have only some idea...old testament apochryphal books were rejected because authorship could not be known for sure, or the suspected author was not a prominent figure.

anyone feel free to correct me on this.

There are no "apocryphal NT" books that the RCC includes. All the 'extra books' of the RCC are old testament. Your criteria of authorship is incorrect, and I will be glad to explain the criteria once we have heard from our esteemed Jude on this subject, since he seems to be an expert....given enough time, he should be able to do a little research and come up with the criteria....its available online, like everthing else.

[Jude3b]

What was the criteria the RCC used to include them? What was the reformers reasons to 'not' include them? What are the qualifications to be part of the canon? Do the apocryphal texts have added 'tradition'? What exactly do you know of this? Anything? It just appears you are spouting venom at the RCC and have no real knowledge of any of it.

The books of the Apocrypha were rejected from the Hebrew canon by the Jews of Palestine.
The Roman Catholic Church in the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D., declared eleven of the books to be canonical, and they appear in the modern Roman Catholic edition of their Scriptures.
The View of Christians and Protestants:
The canonicity of the Apocrypha has been rejected for these reasons:
1. They are never quoted by Jesus, and they were not alluded to by the apostles.
2. Most of the early church Fathers regarded them as uninspired.
3. They did not appear in the Ancient Hebrew canon.
4. The inferior quality of most of the writings as compared with the canonical books, stamps them as unworthy of a place in the sacred Scriptures.

[potato sundae]

There are no "apocryphal NT" books that the RCC includes. All the 'extra books' of the RCC are old testament. Your criteria of authorship is incorrect, and I will be glad to explain the criteria once we have heard from our esteemed Jude on this subject, since he seems to be an expert....given enough time, he should be able to do a little research and come up with the criteria....its available online, like everthing else.


Whoa buster....

Old testament canonical books were determined by content aswell as authorship. not only did they have to be correct historically and geographically, but also theologically. the author had to be a known "spokesman for god".

as for apochryphal nt books, i'm refering to books like gospel of thomas, etc.

[twohumble]

The books of the Apocrypha were rejected from the Hebrew canon by the Jews of Palestine.
The Roman Catholic Church in the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D., declared eleven of the books to be canonical, and they appear in the modern Roman Catholic edition of their Scriptures.
The View of Christians and Protestants:
The canonicity of the Apocrypha has been rejected for these reasons:
1. They are never quoted by Jesus, and they were not alluded to by the apostles.
2. Most of the early church Fathers regarded them as uninspired.
3. They did not appear in the Ancient Hebrew canon.
4. The inferior quality of most of the writings as compared with the canonical books, stamps them as unworthy of a place in the sacred Scriptures.
Nice research Jude, but you only read one side, obviously. Do you know the rebuttals to what you have written?

[twohumble]

Whoa buster....

Old testament canonical books were determined by content aswell as authorship. not only did they have to be correct historically and geographically, but also theologically. the author had to be a known "spokesman for god".

as for apochryphal nt books, i'm refering to books like gospel of thomas, etc.
Potato, the RCC does not include any of the gnostic gospels or other NT writings in their Bible, so any mention of them in regard to this discussion is irrelevant.

In regard to authorship, that is not a major criteria, since some of the authorship of various parts of the OT are still in debate. Certainly content was a criteria. Jude, in an earlier post, listed 4 criteria that the reformers used to r/o the apocryphal texts. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with any of them, however, there are very good rebuttals to them, and there are two sides to the story. Note this, there is NOTHING in any of the apocryphal texts that in any way deal with doctrine contrary to any salvational issue. They also have been hailed by many a scholar to be amazingly historical documents in their accuracy.

Judes comments regarding these texts, and them leading the RCC to everlasting damnation is pure hogwash, its divisive and venomous. Its based in ignorance of the facts....in otherwords...exactly the kind of propaganda that Satan loves to use to cause strife.

[Jude3b]

I know your just itching to defend your adding to Scripture. Go ahead and tell us why Rome added the Apocrypha during the Council of Trent, in 1546 A.D.

[twohumble]

I know your just itching to defend your adding to Scripture. Go ahead and tell us why Rome added the Apocrypha during the Council of Trent, in 1546 A.D.
First, to clerify, I don't hold the apocryphal texts to be canonical. Second, I truly have NO desire to tell you why the council of trent chose to keep them. What I have a desire to do is point out that you look at one side of a story, and take a vigilante attitude toward a group of Christian brothers and sisters. You judge them without knowing anything about them or their history (which in fact is YOUR history). You have been brainwashed by some legalistic cult of you own, and taken it upon yourself to be the judge of things that you know not.

My question stands, do you know the rebuttals to your points? Or do you admit on this board that you only looked at one side of the story? I have looked at both, I agree with the reformation, but I understand the confusion, especially in the day of the council of Trent. I also have read much of the apocryphal texts, and find them good reads, if not inspired by God, still very informative. A number of scholars have written good commentaries on them, and there is a concensus that these books were at least 'good' if not excellent historical sources.

[Jomby]

Hi, I'm new here and not used to arguing about the faith. But I just wanted to add a few points to the discussion, if that's ok.

I believe the Catholic Church condemned the opinion that "works alone" are sufficient for salvation-- it was the heresy known as Pelgianism around the time of Augustine.

Also, I think that much of difference between Protestant and Catholic doctrines of salvation come down to minute points. From what I can gather, Protestants generally hold that "Faith" is the requirement, and that "Works" are the sign of someone's faith. Both are necessary (James 2:24), but one (works) is entirely dependent on the other (faith), and supposedly follows necessarily from it.

I think that the Catholic Church's position is that one can have real faith where works don't necessarily follow from it. And this is not sufficient-- James 2:24, Romans 2:6-9, and others...

Also, I think this trickles down into the question of whether we can be assured of our salvation. Protestants say yes; Catholics say no, but we can hope for it.

Thanks. :smile:

[twohumble]

Hi, I'm new here and not used to arguing about the faith. But I just wanted to add a few points to the discussion, if that's ok.

I believe the Catholic Church condemned the opinion that "works alone" are sufficient for salvation-- it was the heresy known as Pelgianism around the time of Augustine.

Also, I think that much of difference between Protestant and Catholic doctrines of salvation come down to minute points. From what I can gather, Protestants generally hold that "Faith" is the requirement, and that "Works" are the sign of someone's faith. Both are necessary (James 2:24), but one (works) is entirely dependent on the other (faith), and supposedly follows necessarily from it.

I think that the Catholic Church's position is that one can have real faith where works don't necessarily follow from it. And this is not sufficient-- James 2:24, Romans 2:6-9, and others...

Also, I think this trickles down into the question of whether we can be assured of our salvation. Protestants say yes; Catholics say no, but we can hope for it.

Thanks. :smile:
Nice post, and you may well be right. What I find interesting is that many denominations in the protestant sector seem to be of he same mind set. Take the pentacostal Assembly of God denomination as an example. They say you can lose your salvation for all sorts of things, and can never be 'sure' of it. Works, although they deny it, are central to their doctrine. So central in fact, that when one deviates from their standard of behavior, they are considered 'unsaved' and need to 'recommit' their lives. How many times does it say we need to be born of the Spirit?

[Jude3b]

A Christian brother or sister is not condemned by me. I am opposed to every false way. Romanism is a false way. That doesn't mean that I do not love Roman Catholic people. I assume that those who are part of Romanism and saved - are still there because they have not read and understood the Word of God. In time, if they are truly saved, they will read the Word of God and come to see how Rome has deviated from it. They will want to separate from the false way, just like I did. The unsaved in Romanism also need someone to share the Gospel with them, because they will not get it there. Rome has "another gospel" which is not the Gospel. We are not saved by religious works and Rome's religion. Christ is the only Savior - He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8 & 9).

[twohumble]

A Christian brother or sister is not condemned by me. I am opposed to every false way. Romanism is a false way. That doesn't mean that I do not love Roman Catholic people. I assume that those who are part of Romanism and saved - are still there because they have not read and understood the Word of God. In time, if they are truly saved, they will read the Word of God and come to see how Rome has deviated from it. They will want to separate from the false way, just like I did. The unsaved in Romanism also need someone to share the Gospel with them, because they will not get it there. Rome has "another gospel" which is not the Gospel. We are not saved by religious works and Rome's religion. Christ is the only Savior - He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8 & 9).
Good points jude, but, you keep claiming the RCC has 'another gospel'. Of what do you speak? I have looked at a catholic bible, and I see "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John", and no other. Interestingly, these gospels are identical to those found in any other version I read (ie. NIV, NASB et.) I don't see how the RCC has any 'different' gospel. Can you clerify?

[shunyadragon]

A Christian brother or sister is not condemned by me. I am opposed to every false way. Romanism is a false way. That doesn't mean that I do not love Roman Catholic people. I assume that those who are part of Romanism and saved - are still there because they have not read and understood the Word of God. In time, if they are truly saved, they will read the Word of God and come to see how Rome has deviated from it. They will want to separate from the false way, just like I did. The unsaved in Romanism also need someone to share the Gospel with them, because they will not get it there. Rome has "another gospel" which is not the Gospel. We are not saved by religious works and Rome's religion. Christ is the only Savior - He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8 & 9).
Puzzled???? The Protestant took books out of the Bible. The Roman Church di not add any after the original Councils determined what the scripture was. The eliminated and burned enough books to fill a library.

The Roman Church also believes 'We are saved by grace through faith' (Eph. 2:8 & 9), but also believe 'without works, faith is dead.' as it says in the Bible.

[Findo]

Good points jude, but, you keep claiming the RCC has 'another gospel'. Of what do you speak? I have looked at a catholic bible, and I see "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John", and no other. Interestingly, these gospels are identical to those found in any other version I read (ie. NIV, NASB et.) I don't see how the RCC has any 'different' gospel. Can you clerify?
I don't think he means a book of the bible that we label a gospel. I get the feeling he is refering to 'the gospel' as in the good news of Christ and His redeeming work of the cross.

[twohumble]

I don't think he means a book of the bible that we label a gospel. I get the feeling he is refering to 'the gospel' as in the good news of Christ and His redeeming work of the cross.
What is the Good News Afinden? Isn't the good news that Jesus died for our sins, and because He deemed to take on flesh, and take on our sins, we are not cut off from the Father? Isn't the good news based in the faith that we place in Jesus as out Lord and savior, and that He is enough to get us before the Father spotless?

If you think the RCC doesn't share that Gospel, then you don't know the RCC. The Christology of the RCC is very sound, they know Who, and What Jesus is, and they in NO WAY soft shell Christs nature, Diety, or saving Grace. That is the Gospel, period. The rest is simply doctrinal differences that don't hold a hill a beans in relation to the real message of the gospel and our salvation.

Its time we major in the majors, and not the minors. The stuff Jude likes to spew is all divisive, and whether we agree with the RCC on their traditions is irrelevant to the truth of the Gospel. We are all, including the RCC, members of the Body of Christ, and therefore members of "the Universal Church" or "Catholic Church".

God Bless