Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

No problem.

In Christ,
Nate

"Eccere nullus-a-um salus-utis externus Christus!"

 

DHK,
Is it true that the definition of Church are all those who accept Christ? If so then doesn't one have to belong to the catholic church? And by 'catholic' I mean simply universal. Now true the RCC teaches this to be only the RCC. But in a sense is this not true? One does have to belong to the Church. Because everyone who is truely saved is an automatic member into the Family of God or Church.
In Christ,
Nate

"Eccere nullus-a-um salus-utis externus Christus!"

 

Actually I disagree with most people (even many Baptists) on the definition of "church."
Your definition comes close to the "family of God," of which every true born again beleive is born into and made a son or daughter thereof.
But the Greek word underlying the word translated "church" in the Bible is "ekklesia" which means "assembly," as it is properly translated in Acts 19:

Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

This is how the word should be used. It is a gathering together of people, an assembly. It is impossible therefore, for a church to be either universal or invisible. It is always local, such as the church (assembly) at Corinth, church (assembly) at Ephesus, Church (assembly) at Jerusalem, etc. Never do we read of a universal church in the Bible. There are only local churches spoken of. All of Paul's epistles were either written to a local church or a pastor thereof. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 different local churches. There are no denominations in the Bible, only local churches.
Ekklessia always means congregation or assembly. If it was translated that way consistently (as some other translations do--Darby) there would be a lot less confustion today on the doctrine of the church.
So with that preface:

1. "Is it true that the definition of Church are all those who accept Christ?"
--No, a better definition would be either the family of God, or the bride of Christ. All who are saved belong to the family of God, and all will be in the bride of Christ.

2. "If so then doesn't one have to belong to the catholic church?"
--Your premise being wrong this question is illogical.
First, there isn't any evidence that those in the Catholic Church are saved. That is a presumption.
Second, what does the Catholic Church have to do with "the family of God" or "the church" or "all the saved" as you put it. It is another religion, a cult, a religion that does not preach the gospel. One cannot believe what the Catholic Church teaches and be a Christian at the same time. What does the RCC and Christianity have in common? From its inception in the fourth century the RCC is simply paganized Christianity. Biblical Christianity always stood outside of the RCC.

3. "And by 'catholic' I mean simply universal."
But that is not how most people understand it today. If you mean universal then please use the term to avoid confusion. There is no such thing as a universal church, as I explained above. It is a contradiction of terms. If ekklessia means assembly, how is it possible to have a universal assembly? It is impossible. Where would all the believers of the world meet? Who would be its visible pastor? Where would he preach from? The word church means assembly, and denotes that we do assemble together, as all the churches in the New Testament did. Jesus himself wrote to 7 different historical churches in the book of Revelation. Each one was an assembly having its own pastor (messenger).

4. "Now true the RCC teaches this to be only the RCC. But in a sense is this not true?"
--No, not at all. It is the farthest thing from the truth. The RCC is no more closer to the truth of Biblical Christianity than Hinduism is. Both are polytheistic. Study about Mariolatry, and the worship of dead saints. They pray to Mary as another god, expect Mary to answer their prayers as another god, attribute characteristics that only can be attributed to God such as omnipresence and omnipotence. Can Mary hear and answer all the prayers of all the Catholics world-wide in every time zone in the world? To do so she would have to be god. The Catholic Church believes in more than one god, whether they admit it or not.

5. "One does have to belong to the Church."
--Chapter and verse? Where does it say that? It gives a Biblical precedent in Acts 2:41 where they that believed were first baptized, and then added to the church (at Jerusalem.) And so it is Biblical for that one who receives Christ as Saviour to first be baptized after becoming saved, and then to find a good Bible-believing church and join it, that he, may like the early believers:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
--You carry out this commmand in a local church not a so-called imaginary universal church.

6. "Because everyone who is truely saved is an automatic member into the Family of God or Church."
--Because everyone who is saved belongs to the family of God, they need to be taught doctrine, or be discipled. That is the obligation of the local church today, and is the very reason why one needs to find a good Bible-believing church. The RCC is not in that category. I was a Catholic for 20 years and never heard the gospel once. The RCC doesn't preach the gospel of Christ.
DHK

 

I agree with many of your points and you bring some interesting idea's to the table. But I would disagree with some of your conclusions. I agree the RCC doesn't preach the gospel of Christ.
In Christ,
Nate

"Eccere nullus-a-um salus-utis externus Christus!"

 

DHK,
Thanks for your post.
But Darby didn't rule out the Heavenly Universal Church mentioned in Ephesians 1, even though he explained and worked for the local churches. The main problem with RC's Catholic is that they consider it as a compromising with the worldly things, which makes "Catholic" a very much secular concept, converting "Universal" as "generally acceptable or worldly" far away from sanctified, consecrated assembly of the born-again believers.
The concept of Heavenly Universal Church is quite important when we notice many denominations compete each other and sometimes struggle each other even though they are truly believers and parts of one Body. In that aspect, I don't want to ignore the original concept and importance of Catholic Church. Whenever I encounter other denominations ( Plymouth Brethren don't consider themselves as a denomination), we can be generous and can tolerate the other true believers, as long as they are born-again believers at least, if we keep in mind the Heavenly, Consecrated, Holy Universal Church.
If anyone is truly born again in the Lord, then such person has become a member of the Family of God.

It is interesting that PB doesn't have any head quarter, no general assembly, because they believe the Head Quarter is in heaven and the Superintendant is Jesus Christ, the Chairman is our God.

 

Good post Eliyahu. I agree with you.
In Christ,
Nate

"Eccere nullus-a-um salus-utis externus Christus!"

 

Who said anything about Darby? I referred to his translation, not his theology. Note that Paul was not writing to a universal heavenly church. What does he say in the first verse?

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

He is writing to the saints at Ephesus, a local assembly. They knew nothing of the concept of any universal church. It was unknown at that time, and it is a relatively new concept in church history. Look how the WEB translation renders Eph.5

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the assembly, being himself the savior of the body. But as the assembly is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their own husbands in everything.

Even in this passage, commonly taken as a universal church, a proper translation of ekklesia, would make that interpretation impossible. The proper translation of ekklesian is assembly or congregation. It cannot be translated as universal. A universal assembly is impossible. It will only happen when we as, all believers, will gather or assemble together in heaven.

They are only universal in the sense that they have their apostate churches in literally every nation of the world, just as the Islam has spread its tentacles into all the world. Islam is also a "universal" religion.

This concept is wrong. Their are denomination because of wrong doctrine--doctrinal error. There are no denominations in the Bible. Granted, there may be some believers in most denominations. There may be some denominations which are so liberal that there are no believers. It is better to speak of those that have a personal relationship with Christ, that is those that are saved, rather than the denomination that they are in. All believers are in the family of God.

Why? What original concept and importance did they have. They were the first group to paganize true Christianity. They brought idolatry into Christianity, and a watered-down form of Christianity to the pagans and made it acceptable to them. That is what Catholicism did. Biblical Christianity has always lived outside of Catholicism.

Not all PB are saved; not all Baptists are saved. There is no denomnination in which all members are saved. The Bible does not speak of denominations. Ephesians was written to the saints at Ephesus. It was not written to the denomination at Ephesus. As a rule Baptists (especially IFB) practice ecclesiastical separation. That is we separate ourselves from those denominations that have gone apostate or do not preach the gospel of Christ. There are many churches that no longer preach the gospel, that today deny the fundamentals of the faith. Go back in history. Even Spurgeon fought against heresy. Then it was known as the "Downgrade Controversy."
All born again believers may be in the family of God, but that says nothing about their denomination, and it speaks nothing about a universal church (assembly)which by definition is a contradiction of terms.

True.

Even the Bible speaks about church order. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus about church government and order in the church.
To the church at Philippi he wrote:

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
--This church had a general assembly on earth with bishops (overseers or pastors), and deacons. These people were not in heaven overseeing the church. They were right there in Philippi having oversight of the church and serving it as servants of God, contrary to the PB doctrine.
DHK

 

DHK,
I hope you know I am so-called PB.
Yes, Bible strongly deny Denominations. It is quite interesting that I defend the concept " Universal" here, because you know I always fight against "Catholic."
If we understand " local churches ( assemblies)" then, the integration of all the local assemblies still exist, and that is mentioned as "Assembly" in Ephesians 1:22-23

I hope you don't misunderstand about the offices of the church. PB discern that there are only 2 offices in the assembly: Elder(=Overseer) and Deacon.
Elders are the same as Overseers( translated as Bishops) as we read Acts 20:17 and 28. Paul called Elders of the church (singular) at Ephesus and spoke to them " HS set you as Overseers" 20:28. Also, if you read Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-7, you will find both are the same, having the same qualifications. In Titus, Paul mention that he left Titus for establishing elders, then mention about the qualification of the overseers in verse 7.
Eph 4:11- mention about the gifts, not the offices.
Therefore we can confirm that there are only 2 offices in the assembly, Elders( =Overseers) and Deacons. They are mentioned always as plural, and therefore Mono-Pastoral system is groundless.


.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of Heavenly Universal Church is quite important when we notice many denominations compete each other and sometimes struggle each other even though they are truly believers and parts of one Body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Are you guys just arguing semantics while saying the same thing?

#2. The letter to the Ephesians like the message in Rev 3 to the churc at Ephesus - has a local church context BUT WE ALSO accept that it is given to the entire body of Christ as "the church" - therefore we ALL read it and apply it locally to ourselves in every age rather than arguing "yes but that is just for the believers in Ephesus" when we read that NT text.

I know we all agree on that - so I am not sure where that part of this thread is going either.

 

All good points. What are the options?

#1. Let's just "make up a line" and then say anyone over that line is in the "intolerable error" category and so God can not possibly consider them a saved child of God.

When we do that - typically we try to "make up a line" so that long lived denominations with horrible "make up" doctrines like the RCC are "in" while short lived ones tend to be out.

Imagine a "new church" arising today that promoted death for its detractors, church-state bondage, prayed to its dead, invented another way to pay for sins - afterlife (lets call it purgatory), declared its leader to be "God on earth" and doctrinally infallible, burned bibles, banned reading the Bible for all lay people under its dominion, ...

Of course some here would consider that to be the actions of a "cult" no matter how old it was ... granted.

#2. Let's say that any error - is "bad" and of Satan - not of God -- and so anyone that does not believe all points of doctrine as we do - is in "intolerable error".

#3. Let's ignore the idea entirely - no matter who corrupt the dotrines of the group - never adopt/use/consider the idea of some group as a non-Christian group pretending to be Christian when in fact their views are far too extreme to be anything close to the literally infallible truth of our Creator God who literally gave us our beginning as He defines it in Genesis and literally saved us from the literal fall into sin as literally defined in Genesis.

Is there another option?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

Maybe we can 'temper' our rhetoric so that people we feel are at or over the 'intolerable' error line can breathe long enough to hear our reasons for feeling so?

As I said, or at least alluded too, earlier for many of us the moniker "Cult" is a line of demarcation that forbids fellowship of any kind except to drag people out of the fire...

Clearly there are 'religious enterprises' which are unambiguously opposed to the Gospel of Christ.

These I can easily call Cults...

But, when a group is in Clear Error, as is the Catholic Church, yet holds to the teaching of the Gospel in some form...

IMHO, it is better to leave the doors open for discussion because fellowship is required in this case because the issues are so complex as to require full and open discussions...

With a Cult the issues are Black and White...

But, that's just one man's opinion.

Mike Sr.

BTW: I had a rare cogent thought?

Jesus in dealing with the religious leaders of his day openly corrected and judged those that were trying to trip him up or harm him...

Yet, when Nicodemus came to him honestly seeking answers Jesus pretty much treated him with 'kid gloves'...

I guess for some **ALL** Catholics are Saducess and Pharisess and there are no Nicodemuses to be found?

If that makes sense?

 

Have you ever heard the Gospel preached by Catholic?
Oh dear ! It is the big difference in discerning what is Gospel !

Do they believe there is one God? Devils also believe and tremble ( James 2:19)

Yes, there are some people who came from Catholic to hear the gospel, and were converted, then they left from there. There are many even on this board who confess such conversion! Bible Says " Come out of her, my people!" ( Rev 18:4)

 

There are a lot of televangelists that fit in the above category, too. And, they aren't smart enough to tremble!

Consider also,
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not all that are Born-Again have left the Catholic Church...

And, well I am not going to get into a narrow eschatologic view of who or what the Great Whore is or who or what Babylon is...

We each are entitled to our own opinions. No matter how right or wrong they may be...

My question remains. And, is this... Wherein is Grace?

Is your view Acting In Love?

Did you hear anything I have been saying?

Or, did you just jump on the first thing you disagreed with?

Mike Sr.

 

Eliyahu,
Catholicism isn't a cult. And when you and the rest of these people who are condemning it to Hell stand in the presence of the Master, you will be judged. And you will have to answer to him when he says "I heard you when you judged your brethren." Catholics beleive that God sent his only son to die on the Cross for our sins, and that he was the ultimate sacrifice for us. They believe he was raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And they believe That He is the one true God in three Divine and equal beings.
All of your little antagonistic authors of these silly books can't convince me that a church that teaches and believes these things is a Cult influenced by Satan. And really, they shouldn't be convincing you either.

---Justin

 

By the way, I don't often see Practicing Catholics Trembling and running and Hiding from God. I often see them praying to him. Thanking him for his blessings and asking forgiveness of their sins. (Yes, I know MANY Catholics. And I have witnessed these things.)

---Justin

 

All of this raving and ranting--does not resolve anything. There is no way to logically argue when all parties cannot agree to a standard. In the present dilemma, the scripture as the sole rule of faith and practice versus the scripture and the traditions of men decides the rules, cannot be resolved--it is an impasse.

Preach the Word, let the Holy Spirit convince of sin, righteousness and judgement to come. The lost sheep will hear His voice, and they will follow Him, in spite of all the soul-winning efforts of those who somehow seem to be keeping score. God knows them that are His.

That which is a cult is defined by the religious powers that be. "That Way"(the real followers of Christ), would probably have been called a cult in A.D. 33, also during the Dark Ages. Some of those so called heretics were in fact true to the scripture--that is probably why the religious powers that be killed those who would translate and read the Word of God. The Word cuts, like a two-edged sword.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You better discern them carefully, about how they were saved. They may confess no experience of salvation, because they believe one can be born again by Holy Baptism which means infant baptism, and they interpret John 6 as taking Eucharist, they believe that they should go to the Purgatory. Is that salvation? How many million years do they have to spend in Purgatory?
Don't you believe that you go to the heaven directly? They are more miserable than the Robber at the Cross because Robber could go to the Paradise directly.
They make idols and excuse about Idol worship continuously. They do not know about Inquisition which tortured and killed thousands and millions.
They repeat the Mass where Priests ask God for the forgiveness and then they never mention those sins were forgiven already. What about papacy? Is that the way God taught us to serve Him? Will Jesus have Summit meeting with Pope when He comes again?

 

Many "millions" of Catholics are "won" every year through the process of explaining the Bible to them. This is in fact "common ground" though you may think of them as "anti-Bible" at times.

At the same time it may also be observed that a great many non-Catholics who are either of "no faith" or of "little faith" come into the RCC via marriage covenants - having spouses that make it a "requirement" for them to join, or having children and then deciding to join the church of their spouse etc.

But you don't see the RCC doing "evangelistic seminars" or "Bible study seminars" for the publich and "winning" people in the church via that upfront Bible method - as you do with non-Catholic groups. That is simply and obviously not the means used by the RCC in America.

That has to be our focus. If we ever diverge from the bible-centered focus on RC error/history etc then it would eventually just turn into nothing more than "Catholic bashing".

Those who think it is "catholic bashing" to admit to what the Bible says about the RCC and predicted about's it's great dark ages persecution of the saints - are simply placing "feeling over scripture" as an argument to ignore the text of scripture.

But when we do expose the errors of the RCC - it has to be the rcC (the Roman Catholic CHURCH) not an ad hominem against the RC "the Roman Catholic".

That is huge.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Be objective for a minute.

IF the Catholic Church was called Graylic Church instead of Roman Catholic - and if it started in 1982 instead of 507 AD -- and IF it uniquely introduced the following doctrines for the FIRST time in all of Christianity ---

1 - Praying to the dead.
2 - openly admitting to adopting pagan idols and using them to pray to the dead.
3 - inventing another after life of non-heaven non-hell (purgatory)
4 - "Condemming to EXTERMINATION" all who opposed it.
5 - inventing "Mary sinless like Christ" and "Co redemptrix QUEEN of the Universe"
6. - Inventing the doctrine that Mary was assumed into heaven BECAUSE LIKE Christ SHE TOO was sinless
7. - INVENTING the idea that a man HAS POWER to create God, RESACRIFICE Christ in the bread and wine AND to forgive sin. ADMITTING to the fact that she is "worshipping a piece of bread" IF her claims to CREATE God and resacrifice Christ were in fact "error".
8. Claiming that it's leaders on earth were doctrinally infallible!
9. Burning Bibles and making it illegal for any of its own membership outside of clergy to own or read the Bible!
10. Raising giving birth to rival splinter groups with their own infallible leader - then each one raising armies to slaughter the other - promising each army "HEAVEN" should they die in battle!
11. CREATING a system of torture so unique and pronounced that HISTORY marked its birth and progress!
12. CLaiming for it's high clergy the "PLACE OF GOD ON EARTH".
13. CLaimging for ALL MANKIND "NO salvation outside of the GRAYLIC Church"

... (The list goes on)...

Notice my points here refer to the institution the RCC - NOT to "come Catholic church member that I know". It is a look at the history of the RCC itself.

Would you REALLY look to that new "GRAYLIC" church and say "NOW there is NOTHING there that looks like a cult to ME"!!??? - Because that is what you just claimed to do --

Be serious.