Question on Roman Catholicism (Not for Catholics)

[doulos]

Hi Y'all
I have a question about Roman Catholicism. I would like to hear from Protestants only.
First of all...I am not trying to start a debate or trash catholics or anything along those lines. This is a serious question that I have been debating with myself for a while and want to hear the opinions of others.
Second of all...I realize that there are many Christians in Roman Catholicism, I am not saying anything against those who are in this religion, but about the religion itself.
Ok so on to my question. Im sure it has been asked before. Can we really call Roman Catholicism a Christian religion? The reason I ask is only because it appears they teach a different gospel. This makes them cursed according to Galatians, right? They may say that they believe that Jesus is the only way to heven, but it is not what they teach. Is my thinking right or wrong? Thanks

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Doulos, I do consider Catholics Christian. I am a former catholic. I left because of things like

1. Confession
2. The Rosary
3. Hail Mary
4. Prayer to the saints
5. The Pope
6. Baptism and communion rituals and emphasis
7. Amount of $ wasted on cathedrals.

Oh, and I got excommunicated (after I left on my own) for getting divorced because my x wife committed adultery.


I am now a pentecostal holiness youth pastor... quite the change huh?? I do consider them Christians because they do believe in the core values of our faith. The peripheral issues are not enough to consider them outside the Christian faith.

[SaintMorpheus]

Doulos,
I recommend picking up a Catholic Catechism. It's really quite good reading, and it would show you what the "official" beliefs of the Roman Catholics are. In my personal opinion, the run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic is as likely to trust Jesus for salvation as any typical Protestant you might meet. We Protestants may not be devoted to Mary or believe in Purgatory, but I know plenty of us who put an imbalanced amount of faith in the Bible, the pastor, our own interpretations, etc etc. Roman Catholicism is not more prone to idolatry than Protestantism. Those who truly love Christ and look to Him for salvation are relatively rare, in my opinion, all over the board. Anyway, I digress. The point is : I recommend reading the Catholic Catechism, the whole thing, rather than basing your opinion on what you may have heard from a Protestant pastor or author (not that this is what you are doing). People have a tendency to believe what others say without further thought, and I think many beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church are simply Reformation-era rhetoric that's been handed down over the generations and accepted without critical thought.
Also, I'd recommend going to a Catholic Mass (try to find a traditional one, if possible). Get to know Catholics without trying to convert them.
These are all good ways of making a good judgment for yourself.

[Theolog]

Christian exclusivity is on par with petty nationalism. To their faces each side feigns acceptance while in their hearts they despise one another.

I used to think that Rome was a false church because it taught a false gospel until I learned that most churches teach a false Gospel. From what I have seen most of the people on this forum would be hard pressed to define the true gospel and they are the ones that are interested in the subject. Even orthodox Christianity comes in various flavors.

We sure are lucky that “right doctrine” is not what saves or we would all be lost.

Flaming five pointer

[doulos]

Thanks for responding to my post y'all.
Saint Morpheus:

I recommend picking up a Catholic Catechism. It's really quite good reading, and it would show you what the "official" beliefs of the Roman Catholics are.

Actually I have read the CC. I was actually a Catholic for a couple of years. I took classes on the RCC religion from the Priest of the church I went to, and also read a book they gave to me called This Is Our Faith and the Catholic Catechism.


In my personal opinion, the run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic is as likely to trust Jesus for salvation as any typical Protestant you might meet.


I agree, most probably are. As I said in my intro, I do not doubt one bit that there are a lot of Christians in the RCC. The problem I see with some people is that you can ask them how are they saved, and they say Jesus. But then if you ask about purgatory, or if they have to do good works to get to heaven they agree with that too.

The point is : I recommend reading the Catholic Catechism, the whole thing, rather than basing your opinion on what you may have heard from a Protestant pastor or author (not that this is what you are doing). People have a tendency to believe what others say without further thought, and I think many beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church are simply Reformation-era rhetoric that's been handed down over the generations and accepted without critical thought.


I agree my opinion should not be based on what others have said in books or on the web. In fact most people that I talk to about this topic seem to be saying what y'all guys are saying. I just cant see it though.

In my studying this is what I have found:
The gospel is summed up in John 3:16 and Ephesian 2:8-9:
We are saved when we believe in Christ Jesus, and not by any good work we could ever do.

RCC, although they do affirm the above, they also say this about purgatory in the Catholic Cathecism:
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperctly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

So essentially what this is saying is that our Lord's death on the cross was enough to pay for all of our sins. Is this not another gospel and not the Gospel the Bible gives us?

Also what about requiring the sacraments for salvation:
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the new covenant are necessary for salvation.

At the end of this sentence there is a footnote that references you to the Council of Trent which says:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

This is another gospel, right?

Theolog:

We sure are lucky that “right doctrine” is not what saves or we would all be lost.


Right doctrine though is extremely important though if it concerns Soteriology. If you don't have a "right" view of salvation what happens?

[Ric]

I do believe that the Roman Catholic church of today is not a Christian church. With her teachings of works to keep salvation and false way to receive salvation is in it's self a false gospel.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there are truly some saved people within the Roman Catholic church, but the teachings of the church are false!

Yesterday @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146634#post146634)
doulos:

Hi Y'all
I have a question about Roman Catholicism. I would like to hear from Protestants only.
First of all...I am not trying to start a debate or trash catholics or anything along those lines. This is a serious question that I have been debating with myself for a while and want to hear the opinions of others.
Second of all...I realize that there are many Christians in Roman Catholicism, I am not saying anything against those who are in this religion, but about the religion itself.
Ok so on to my question. Im sure it has been asked before. Can we really call Roman Catholicism a Christian religion? The reason I ask is only because it appears they teach a different gospel. This makes them cursed according to Galatians, right? They may say that they believe that Jesus is the only way to heven, but it is not what they teach. Is my thinking right or wrong? Thanks

[doulos]

So: whether or not the RCC is Chrisitan, what should we be doing to help those that are in the RCC. The WRONG way of course is to start bashing the RCC or going up to random RCC members and telling them, "Hey you've go it all wrong". What do you think the right way might be?

[jimmyt]

Interesting question, since the RCC has been around for roughly 2000 years. Save your breath on the proselytizing, though. That presumes that your choice of religion is the correct one and you won't know for certain until the moment of your death.

[Xavier]

I think spl_cadet has an open invitation to all who think that the Catholic has left the sphere of Christianity..

Look here:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11368

Not making a position, Just merely point out an opportunity...

Xavier

[Thomas2003]

The Roman Church was once catholic, in that is held to the universal Christian faith "once delivered to the saints." However, in its apostasy it is clear it is no longer Christian catholicity to which is holds, but emperial Roman catholicity. It is Roman Catholic, a "christianized" version of ancient pagan Rome. It is primarily a political organization that promotes a civil religion - I would agree with your conclusion that its official position is anti-Christian.

[Will Bum]

Could someone post some links to a site that would breifly outline RC beliefs and scriptures for the defence of their theology? My mom's family is RC, and for the most part they're some of the most awesome Christians I know. I just disagree theologically with them, but cannot wait to be with them in eternity.

[spl_cadet]

Yesterday @ 09:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269599#post269599)
Thomas2003:

The Roman Church was once catholic, in that is held to the universal Christian faith "once delivered to the saints." However, in its apostasy it is clear it is no longer Christian catholicity to which is holds, but emperial Roman catholicity. It is Roman Catholic, a "christianized" version of ancient pagan Rome. It is primarily a political organization that promotes a civil religion - I would agree with your conclusion that its official position is anti-Christian.

Mind taking up my debate offer then and proving your assertion?

Will, www.scripturecatholic.com and www.catholic.com are both good sites for that.

It is duly noted that Spl is not taking part in this debate, as per thread starters instructions, but has responded to a later request for links, and a pointer to an already mentioned debate challenge.

[Theolog]

Right doctirne cannot save you. Only Jesus can save you. Do you believe that Jesus is LORD? Does He know you? Do you live it???

After spending the last 35 or so years looking into the theological mess created by Christians I have concluded that the whole lot are theological idiots suffering from myoptic presuppositional madness. And Christianity is the religion that makes the most sense. All I can do is trust that God will do what is right, good and Holy and we will mess up his work for him.

[John Reece]

Today @ 03:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269893#post269893)
Theolog:

Right doctirne cannot save you. Only Jesus can save you. Do you believe that Jesus is LORD? Does He know you? Do you live it???

After spending the last 35 or so years looking into the theological mess created by Christians I have concluded that the whole lot are theological idiots suffering from myoptic presuppositional madness. And Christianity is the religion that makes the most sense. All I can do is trust that God will do what is right, good and Holy and we will mess up his work for him.

I'd give you some pearls, Theolog, but I don't have any left (the system prevents giving away the last one).

Blessings,

John

[elysian]

I found Catholicism (the teachings) to be a hindrance to faith and that it clouds the way to salvation in Jesus, however my mother is still one and I don't doubt that she is saved. I don't join in her prayers to saints, hail Mary's or rosaries though. There's something about the practice of praying to any one who is not one of the Three Persons of the Trinity that sends up red flags to me: first of idolatry (worshipping something that is not God) and also of necromancy (contacting the dead)- both are things Christians are forbidden from doing- so I cannot agree with those teachings or practices.

But my church (Lutheran) may not be the "right room" in God's House for someone else- for instance my Southern Baptist sister is rather shocked at my agreement with infant baptism (she was re-baptized when she joined the SB's) and is thoroughly turned off by liturgical worship or anything that reminds her of Catholic Mass. Now I have gone to Worship with her family in the SB church and found many similarities (many of the Baptist hymns are also Lutheran hymns so I already knew most of the songs :lol: ) and I am sure that the Holy Spirit is alive and well and working through her local church, as well as in my home church and even in my mother's local church.

The denominational name doesn't mean as much as whether or not the Gospel is being preached inside. (I almost became a Baptist myself simply for their emphasis on Bible study, but became a Lutheran instead because of the emphasis on grace and the preservation of liturgical worship.)

I would look most closely at the local church and what's going on there. There are churches of all denominations in which the Gospel is being preached and the Holy Spirit is present, and there are churches of all denominations in which the Devil is having a field day.

Here's a wonderful reference (very well researched) on Catholicism/vs. Protestantism. The author is a former nun.
www.catholicconcerns.com

[Sheepdog]

doulos:
Also what about requiring the sacraments for salvation:
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the new covenant are necessary for salvation.

At the end of this sentence there is a footnote that references you to the Council of Trent which says:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.


Sigh. the problem is, it isn't quite that simple when someone argues that such-and-such work is necessary for salvation. the Bible doesn't actually make a dichotomy between faith and works that we often do-- to the Bible writers, works were the logical result of faith. thus, you don't necessarily have one without the other. John 15:1-8 is a clear example of this. without producing fruit, you will be thrown in the fire and burned. yet, you may only bear fruit if and only if you abide in Christ (i.e. through faith). hence, it is actually the faith that saves, but works and salvation are the logical result of faith.

the bottom line is, if a Catholic says the work itself is what is necessary for salvation, then i would agree they are preaching a different gospel. however, one who says that it is the faith behind the work itself that saves, we can't say they are lost-- such a Catholic is suprizingly closer to the truth of the matter than even some Protestants.

i think on both sides, there is a lot of confusion about the faith-works relationship. this is something folks on both sides need to resolve.

depending on what they consider sacraments, however, i may challenge them on other grounds.

Theolog:

Right doctirne cannot save you. Only Jesus can save you. Do you believe that Jesus is LORD? Does He know you? Do you live it???

we believe that the LORD calls us to love Him with all our minds, and thus good theology is a valid part of Christianity. how can you love God if you don't know anything about Him?

After spending the last 35 or so years looking into the theological mess created by Christians I have concluded that the whole lot are theological idiots suffering from myoptic presuppositional madness. And Christianity is the religion that makes the most sense. All I can do is trust that God will do what is right, good and Holy and we will mess up his work for him.

sadly, their is a mess, but lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater, let us not forsake the pursuit of good theology, and refute bad doctrine as we are called to. i don't wish to debate this here, but it is an important point.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I grew up next to a Catholic Church, attended a Baptist church, but was interested in the Catholicism.

I hold, with Catholicism, the importance of a consideration of both faith and tradition and believe that Protestants tend to conflate the two with the end-product being much counter-productive divisiveness over endless debates on the meaning of inerrancy of scripture and the meaning of "evangelical" and what-not.

However, I don't care for the ecclesiastical structure of the RCChurch or for how they officially claim that tradition is on the same level as scripture.

I personally believe that if the number of centers of Christianity had not been reduced from four to one with the rise of Islam, that historical Christian Governance would have developed better, since power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely in both secular and sacred governance.

dlw

[Wesley's son]

07-11-2003 @ 02:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146636#post146636)
Bill the Cat:

Doulos, I do consider Catholics Christian. I am a former catholic. I left because of things like

1. Confession
2. The Rosary
3. Hail Mary
4. Prayer to the saints
5. The Pope
6. Baptism and communion rituals and emphasis
7. Amount of $ wasted on cathedrals.

Oh, and I got excommunicated (after I left on my own) for getting divorced because my x wife committed adultery.


I am now a pentecostal holiness youth pastor... quite the change huh?? I do consider them Christians because they do believe in the core values of our faith. The peripheral issues are not enough to consider them outside the Christian faith.


Is the role of Mary as co-redemptrix a peripheral issue? Is that is not enough to grant exclusion? What about the leaning toward univerallism -> http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/rc_hindr.htm

These are not intended to be argumentative questions. As you're an ex-Catholic I trust your assesment. Also my apologies for digging up an old post.

Thanks

[Rev Wayne]

I have had limited contact with anyone of RCC persuasion up until a couple of years ago, when in fulfillment of an ordination requirement, I was part of a CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) group at Bon Secoeurs St. Francis Hospital in Charleston, SC. The group was led by two nuns of the Sisters of Mercy order, and a transplanted Canadian from the United Church of Canada. Among the group in training were a young Jewish rabbi (VERY young, I thought), a Presbyterian, another sister of the same order as our leaders, a member of an independent not-quite-charismatic persuasion church, an AME member, a Baptist, and a couple of us irascible old United Methodists. The training consists of time spent visiting with hospital patients, reflection and theology papers, and group time with presentation of a "verbatim" of a visit, with one person on the hotseat as the others critique the visit.

One thing for sure, by the time anyone comes away from the required 400 hours, everyone in the group knows everyone else. The amazing thing to me was my own (non-shared) assessment of the "spiritual barometer" of each one in the group. Not that I go around analyzing, it was just something that came to mind one day. Of the entire group, the one I was the most impressed with spiritually was the Jewish rabbi, a very congenial, open, and conversant young man--who in fact, as I told the group, if faced with the choice among the group members, would select him as the one to come visit me if I were ever in the hospital. Coming in a very close second were the 3 Catholic sisters in the group, each of whom had their own unique personal faith, but all of whom showed such a depth of spirituality as I rarely see in people.

That was not the opinion I would have expressed going in to the group, and it was unusual for me to feel that way. I suppose I had always been one to "stand on the outside and look in" as regards Catholicism, having a critical eye because of what I knew from the theology. It's a far different story when you are involved in interaction with persons of Catholic faith, and suddenly come to realize that each one of them exhibits a depth to their faith that far exceeds your own. I have been turned around in my thinking by realizing that the approach I took before amounted to "looking at the roots and not at the fruits" in regard to this or any other group.

Wayne

[John Reece]

That reminds me of a friend who worked in an office with a female Catholic co-worker. After the two of them shared witness regarding Christian faith and experience over a considerable period of time (weeks or months), the Catholic co-worker asked my friend, "Harry, how is it that you know Jesus and you are not a Catholic?"

[Jude3b]

Dear Doulous: You certainly raise some valid points about Roman Catholicism being Christian or not. I became a Bible Believing Christian (Born-Again) after 27 years in Roman Catholicism. As a Catholic, I never thought of myself as a Christian, but rather as a Catholic. I was Roman Catholic and proud of it. Upon hearing and understanding the clear Gospel of Christ, I repented and believed on Christ for my salvation. Somehow I just knew after 27 years of not hearing the clear Gospel message in Roman Catholicism that they were wrong and I didn't want any part of it. I could not find Roman Catholicism in the Bible. Instead I found that "believers" like myself made up the Bible church of God. I found out that "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). I found "believers" "Christians" "Nazarenes" etc. in the Bible, but no Roman Catholics. I found "churches of Christ" "church of God" "church of the firstborn" etc in the Bible, but no Roman Catholic religion.
I found that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matt 16:13-16). That made me know that religion is not the Christ (or Messiah/Savior). I found out that Peter was "petros," a boulder, a rock -- "and on this rock" -- "petra," bedrock foundation -- That Jesus said -- "I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18). I found out that "petra," the bedrock of Christianity is the Word of God, the Christ, the Son of the living God. "Petra" is not the Roman Catholic Religion, nor was it the Apostle Peter. The whole of Romanism will stand or fall on that one verse of Scripture. How many verses in the Bible show us that God is the Rock and that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation? Many!
No my friend, Romanism is not Christian in a Biblical sense. It has a different "Christ" or a "false Christ" and it has "another gospel" or "false gospel." It is an imitation and a false perversion of Christianity. Now the question is, will we take our stand and be bold enough to share this truth with our brainwashed Roman Catholic friends and familiy? When a Roman Catholic person becomes a true Christian, it is in spite of Romanism, not because of it. Only ignorance or disobedience will cause a Christian to want to stay part of the false religion of Romanism.
In Christian love, I remain yours in the Master's service, John P. Hansen, the Christian Contender at Jude 3b

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

11-07-2003 @ 11:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275352#post275352)
Wesley's son:




Is the role of Mary as co-redemptrix a peripheral issue? Is that is not enough to grant exclusion? What about the leaning toward univerallism -> http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/rc_hindr.htm

As long as they accept Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father and do not deny the deity of Christ nor the incarnation of a virgin and His resurrection, then yes, they are peripheral issues. If they believe we must accept Mary as a redeemer, then it is not a peripheral doctrine and is outside of the Christian faith. But I have not found the latter to be the case, neither when I was involved, nor since. Sorry if I miss a central doctrine, but I'm a bit tired right now. Long day...

[elysian]

What sent up the red flags for me was when I was in high school and was taking the course for confirmation. We were taught that if a person disagrees with what the Catholic church teaches then that person is not Catholic.

I could not find acceptable arguments for praying to Mary, the infallibility of Popes, the celibacy requirement for clergy, or for confession and penance. For conscience sake I could not consider myself Catholic and started investigating the Reformation and the reasons behind Protestantism. I visited and learned about several Protestant denominations- the Baptist church my sister went to, the Church of Christ, the Nazarenes, and even the Pentecostals. But the Lutherans made the most sense to me- and it had seemed the more I studied the Book of Concord, the Small and Large Catechism, and looked to Scripture as the final Word, I discovered that Martin Luther had addressed most of the concerns I had with the Catholic church.

I'm not going to say one denomination has it all right or all wrong-and I'm not going to say that RC's are all doomed to Hell. Only God knows whose names are written in the Book of Life, and it's not my place to judge. In my opinion-for me- praying to Mary or saints is idolatry because Scripture teaches there is one Mediator between God and man, Who is Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) Now there are RC's who claim that praying to Mary or saints is not idolatry and that anything that Mary or a saint does for you is really done through Christ (to which I say why not cut out the middleman?) but Protestant thinking makes a lot more sense to me.

[George Blaisdell]

Theolog escriveth:

After spending the last 35 or so years looking into the theological mess created by Christians I have concluded that the whole lot are theological idiots suffering from myoptic presuppositional madness. And Christianity is the religion that makes the most sense. All I can do is trust that God will do what is right, good and Holy and we will mess up his work for him.

I often like to remark that there would be a lot more Christians in the west, were it not for all the 'Christians' that are aleady there... The only trouble with Christians is 'Christians'...

The Pope was the first Protestant, and now every Protestant is his own Pope...

Lord have mercy!

[geo] Arsenios

[ollie]

11-02-2003 @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269069#post269069)
jimmyt:

Interesting question, since the RCC has been around for roughly 2000 years. Save your breath on the proselytizing, though. That presumes that your choice of religion is the correct one and you won't know for certain until the moment of your death.
The "RCC' has not been around for two thousand years, but more like 1,600 to 1,700 years.

The church Christ is building came about two thousand years ago. 33 AD

One does not choose religion, but is called by the gospel of Jesus Christ to be holy and sanctified through His shed blood. This is correct and one knows of it in this physical life. The information does not come at the point of physical death.

[ollie]

11-07-2003 @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274906#post274906)
elysian:

I found Catholicism (the teachings) to be a hindrance to faith and that it clouds the way to salvation in Jesus, however my mother is still one and I don't doubt that she is saved. I don't join in her prayers to saints, hail Mary's or rosaries though. There's something about the practice of praying to any one who is not one of the Three Persons of the Trinity that sends up red flags to me: first of idolatry (worshipping something that is not God) and also of necromancy (contacting the dead)- both are things Christians are forbidden from doing- so I cannot agree with those teachings or practices.

But my church (Lutheran) may not be the "right room" in God's House for someone else- for instance my Southern Baptist sister is rather shocked at my agreement with infant baptism (she was re-baptized when she joined the SB's) and is thoroughly turned off by liturgical worship or anything that reminds her of Catholic Mass. Now I have gone to Worship with her family in the SB church and found many similarities (many of the Baptist hymns are also Lutheran hymns so I already knew most of the songs :lol: ) and I am sure that the Holy Spirit is alive and well and working through her local church, as well as in my home church and even in my mother's local church.

The denominational name doesn't mean as much as whether or not the Gospel is being preached inside. (I almost became a Baptist myself simply for their emphasis on Bible study, but became a Lutheran instead because of the emphasis on grace and the preservation of liturgical worship.)

I would look most closely at the local church and what's going on there. There are churches of all denominations in which the Gospel is being preached and the Holy Spirit is present, and there are churches of all denominations in which the Devil is having a field day.

Here's a wonderful reference (very well researched) on Catholicism/vs. Protestantism. The author is a former nun.
www.catholicconcerns.com

But my church (Lutheran) "

Why not the church we read about in the Bible? Christ's!

[Jude3b]

Dear Ollie and Elysian: Have you brothers ever considered that denominationialism is not the will of God? It must hurt Jesus Christ to see his body so separated. Give a read sometime to John chapter 17. I'm also surprised that someone who is born-again the Bible Way and trusts in Christ alone for salvation could possibly believe in infant baptism. Doesn't compute! Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

This is another gospel, right?"


Yes, it is. We are justified by our faith in what Christ has already done for us.

[Jude3b]

Dear Theanalogman: It sure is another Gospel and we are justified by Christ and Christ alone and His all sufficient finished work. Anyone who thinks "infant baptism" saves is "all wet!"
Thanks for participating, Sincerely, Jude 3b

[BiggieT]

It is illogical to go through an entire religion and say that every single person in it are all lost, and I thank everyone who made that clear. With that said, I do not call the catholic religion a Christian denomination. The doctrine of salvation by confession is completely against (sorry I don't know all the technical names)once-saved-always-saved, faith-not-works (however you want to interpret that), and Hebrews 4:14-5:10. Even though not everyone agrees with me on the first two, I'm pretty sure all protestants agree with the last one. The idea that we have to go through another man completely defies Christ's high priesthood. This is the reason for the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies being ripped from top to bottom on the day of Christ's death. First, the Holy of Holies was opened up, signifying that we no longer have to go through a priest to get atonement. Second, the curtain was ripped from top to bottom to show that it was God allowing us in to His mercy seat, and not us barging in, which would kill you anyway.

I'm not sure what my second point has to do with this whole topic, I think I was just rambling again, like I am now.

[BiggieT]

Also, I am entirely against denomenationalism. It is just a representation of one of the greatest community sins in all of Christendom: spliting instead of working out the differences and accepting when we are proven wrong.

[Thew]

I have found it is dangerous to ignore differences in doctrine on issues that are key to salvation.

Some (as have a couple here) would assert that issues such as baby baptism or directing inner dialogue toward a saint or Mary are peripheral issues.

I could not disagree more.

If a person loves their tradition more than they love God, then the fruits of that tradition/religion will be their end reward, which, in and of themselves, are not eternal.
Only Christ's act of redemption is eternal.

If the focus is on icons and rituals instead of maintaining a personal relationship with Christ, then one renders Jesus' work on Calvary of nil effect and God's character has not been understood. The bible clearly not only depicts God as being jealous, it also says He is. We are to have no other Gods before him.
Attributing deity to another human being by whispering prayers to that person, or even something as subtle as throwing an admiring "inner smile" their way, pretty much equates to worship.

A relative of mine who is a devout catholic told me in very straight language that they believed that Mary could "put in a good word" for them with Jesus and the Father.
This is not scriptural and can have eternally negative consequences. Primarily because the person who goes this route has misunderstood the Gospel message: It was Christ who was crucified for our sins, not Mary or any other saint or person.
Mary, the bible tells us, also had to bow her knee to Jesus as savior.

This is not doctrinal hair-splitting, it's key to understanding your need for a savior and accepting Jesus as being the sole solution to that dilemma.

The second example I mention above is baby baptism. This is potentially deadly, because it robs a person of the needed confrontation with their inherent sin nature, which would aid in their coming to repentance. Col 2:8 sums this up.

Another person here (Rev?) spoke of how he gained acceptance of some other's doctrine by being impressed with their "spirituality". I came very close to the Dali Lama once, and was also very impressed with his "spirituality". However, the Dali Lama, I assure you, has no use for the person of Jesus Christ, and without repentance, will not be saved. A person is only spiritual in God's eyes when they are filled with the Holy Spirit. Which cannot happen until Jesus is made Lord of that person's life. :eh:

[Jude3b]

Dear Biggie T and Thew: Thank you friends for participating. It is refreshing to see Bible Believers "preaching the Word" Praise God! Sincerely, John Hansen, aka JUDE 3b