The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

John Ankerberg teaches on this topic. This is some of the facts he has discovered....

God Bless!

 

Sirach,

I said...

And...

And you said...

I have done that more than once. DHK has done that. Now Steaver has done that. We have shown you from our experience as Catholics, and our simply comparing the testimony of God up against the official teachings...straight from Catholic sources as you requested...of the Catholic Church.

Now you have a choice to make. Is it going to be Gods testimony...or the errors and falsehoods of mere men?

God bless,

Mike

 

Sirach,

Are you saying that in Catholic masses they proclaim this?...

"To all here today in this mass, if you will embrace Jesus Christ through faith alone you can be completly reconciled to God, with nobody...no priests, nuns, hierarchial authorities, Mary, the "saints" of old, or the Pope...as your "go between". The Holy Spirit will indwell you and "seal" you into the body of Christ, and begin the process of making you into a new person. You will be "born again". Heaven will be your eternal destination, and you can know that you are saved, rather than "hope so, think so, maybe so".

It is not just a different interpretation. It is taking some true facts about Jesus...he died for our sins, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc...and adding to that many doctrines that are the invention of men, and have no part of the gospel. In effect, creating a false gospel.

When have I judged anyones hearts? I havent judged your heart or anyone elses. As far as I am concerned you are a brother in Christ.

I am judging the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church by holding them up against Gods testimony found in the scriptures.

The Catholic Church's teachings concerning the gospel are in direct contradition to the true gospel.

God bless,

Mike

 

Sirach,

Sirach...I have been quoting excusively from Catholic sources. I have quoted extensively from the still binding Council of Trent, and Steaver gave 5 references from the Catholic catechism.

Speaking glowingly of Christ, or seeming to have a "deep and profound" love for Christ does not necesarrily mean they are christians. I have heard Jehovahs Wittnesses and Mormons speak glowingly of Christ, and seem to have an exceedingly "deep and profound love for Christ".

Does that make them christians?

Its also possible they could be saved and really and truly have that deep relationship with Christ. If they are, they got that way in spite of the Catholic Church, and not because of the Catholic Church. And if they are born of the Spirit, there is going to be a check in their hearts...a tangible negative witness of the Holy Spirit...concerning all the idolatry and falsehood in Catholic teaching.

Usually Catholics like that will be fringe Catholics, who stay in the organsiation for any number of reasons...among them to witness from within.

But the vast majority of time when someone is actually born of the Spirit in Catholicism it isnt long before God begins to deal with them regarding His will that they "...come out of her" and find a true christian fellowship to plug into.

Mike

 

[QB]

You didn't read my post very well did you. First, I went to a number of Catholic churches throughout our nation, because of the nature of my Father's business. So you can't blame it on the teaching of any one Catholic Church. Secondly I myself was a lector, and often gave some of those readings you are talking about

By your own conversation it is apparent that you yourself don't know what the gospel is, that we are referring to. I would challenge you to study thoroughly 1Cor.15:1-4 in detail. The gospel is not simply "The 'Gospel of Matthew,' the 'Gospel of Mark, etc. The word gospel in that context means simply "good news." Certainly the "gospel message" is good news, but it is not good news for the person who does not understand it, or for the person who does and rejects it. The consequences are eternal damnation. The Catholic Church has never preached a gospel message. Reading from one of the gospels is totally irrelevant. Even the most secular people will read the occasional gospel passage as a literary exercise. That is all it really is in the highly liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church--just a literary exercise with not much meaning attached to it--emotion, yes; meaning, no.

Mike has defined the gospel for you many times, but you fail to grasp the message, the real essence of it. The jailor said to Paul: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" What was Paul's answer? How must a person be saved? What is the way of salvation? Use the Bible. That is our authority here.
DHK

 

Good. We all know it, and are acquainted with it as (we assume) you are too. Now take that message and compare it to God's Word and see which one is right. They both can't be right because they both differ. Which one then will you follow--the one written by sinful men, or the one written by God?

If you know what the gospel is then explain what it is to us. Compare what you say, to what Mike says. Is it different? How? Why is it different? Is it different because the Bible says it is different or the RCC says it is different? Do you have God as your authority or sinful men? By which authority are you going to present your case. Please explain--what is the Catholic gospel message that neither Mike or I have never heard within the confines of the Catholic Church?

Our combined experience or years in the Catholic church is greater in number than you are old. And you simply dismiss us as being wrong without any given reason for "being wrong." Your apparent reason is "we have something to hide when it comes to what the Catholic church says about itself." Well glory be!! The Catholic church is hiding something! It is called the gospel message that they hid from us for more than 20 years. Whose the one that is hiding knowledge? So adamant were they at hiding knowledge that they burnt the Bibles of Tyndale. Up until my children's generation the Catholic Church discouraged the reading of the Bible, in fact pretty much prohibited it in the days of my childhood and before that time. Only the priest could have that authority--the authority to read and interpret, especially interpret. Because he alone had the authority of interpretation Bible reading was discouraged. Before that time it was even banned in some places. I do hope you remember some history. Does the term "Dark Ages" ring a bell. There is a distinct religious reason why those ages were so dark.

"Whoever hath ears let him hear" There is plenty of academic information here. But is this the typical Catholic response? It isn't of all; but it is of many. You either can't or won't answer the questions and posts set before you, so you writing a demeaning post, saying that there is nothing academic, nothing for you to learn, its a conspiracy, we're hiding the truth, etc., etc. Just study the Bible and answer some of the posts that have been addressed to you. Let the Bible be your guide. The reason you don't see the contradictions is you don't see what the Bible is teaching.
DHK

God Bless. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Sirach,

I believed that almost my whole life up to 1982 and I was as lost as Satan.

I believed that as well my whole life up to 1982, but was as lost as can be.

The Catholic Church teaches a lot of true facts about Jesus Christ, but a person can believe all the true facts about Jesus Christ and die and go straight to hell. The important thing is how do we access Jesus Christ in order to be born again and have heaven as our eternal destination, along with new life here on earth.

The way we access the salvation that Christ offers is through faith in Jesus Christ. Not faith + works + "Holy Mother (Catholic)Church" + the intercession of "Queen of the Universe" Mary.

Not even faith + works + "Holy Mother Church".

Not even Faith + works.

Its faith alone.

Someone might say "Well, what does it matter, if we add stuff because we still have faith?"

It matters because in Galaciens a specific thing was happening. People were coming along and saying "Hey, faith in Christ is true, but we need to add some works to it. Lets add "circumsision" to faith in Christ."

Circumcision was the problem then, but for 2000 years we...in our stubborn and prideful insistance that was can do some "good work" to "earn" at lease some *little bit* of salvation...have been doing the very same thing, only substituting different "works of choice" to Gods justification by faith alone.

God will have none of it.

In Galaciens God spoke to the circumcision problem, and anything else we substitute for circumcision, and said...

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1: 6-9)

And the false gospel being referred to is adding any type of our "works" to justification through faith alone.

All you have to do is keep reading...

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Dont let anyone lie to you and tell you that it only means the Jewish law there.

The point is that God here is speaking to...any works justification theology that any one or any religious body comes up with.

Romans 4: 5-6:

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

Ephesians 2: 8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Yet we in our pridefull desire to feel we can earn it continue to come up with all manner of devilish and false justification theologies and false gospels.

May God have mercy.

Mike

 

I'm not sure why you posted this in defense of what Catholicism teaches. I went through a few of them and it supports what most here have been telling you. That is that what they teach is FALSE doctrines that are very UNBIBLICAL. Like saints interceding for us in heaven. It is a lie! There is only ONE mediator between God and man. Just ONE!! Jesus Christ. Lest you disregard the Holy Word of God and place the catechism as your authority.

God Bless!

 

I don't claim to understand all the Bible; no man does--not even the RCC; and that is very obvious. But I can say this. For more than 20 years I have been teaching the Bible on a college level--all the Bible. In the past two months I just went through the Bible, teaching Old and New Testament Survey--the whole Bible in two months. In almost 30 years of preaching and teaching I go through each book of the Bible (passage by passage--verse by verse). I have thousands upon thousands of notes. Please don't tell me that I don't recognize many verses in the Bible. I recognize them all. Like I said, I don't claim to have a perfect understanding--no man does. But I certainly recognize the Scriptures.

Perhaps if you have walked in my shoes you would be able to say that. But you don't know where I have walked, and are not able to make that judgement. Your statement is quite inaccurate. The problem is (indicated by your own posts) that you do not know what the Bible teaches, in order to compare what the Catholic Church teaches. BTW, anyone can copy and paste from New Advent or the Catholic Catechism, or anyone of their various sites. We all have that ability.

I compare what the Bible teaches to what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is why you think I am wrong. You don't understand what the Bible teaches. The teaching of the Bible is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I have no question to avoid. I don't have a private interpretation of the Bible. This is the most ridiculous accusations of most Catholics. It is the Catholics that have their own private interpretation of the Bible (the magesterium's) and enforce it upon the entire Catholic Church. This is directly contrary to Scripture and that is the meaning of that verse. I know what the Catholic Church teaches. I have been there, and have all the documentation that I need to show you what it teaches--in one word: heresy.

Good verses. And your point is? I have not met any Catholics that take these verses to heart. Perhaps Mother Theresa denied herself of many of the luxuries of life to do the work that she did. But her doctrine was not Biblical. What about you? Are you willing to live a life like Mother Theresa? Deny yourself of all of life's convenience's and luxuries, go to another nation, live sacrificially and for Christ alone? You wouldn't believe me if I told you where I am posting this from if I told you.

Christ rejected the "Catholic Church" long ago. The truth is, He never accepted it. It never was a Christian Church. It was paganized Christianity when Constantine made it a state relition and introduced all kinds of pagan customs into "Christianity" in the early part of the fourth century. That is where the RCC had its roots.

And so..... Study the Scriptures. Let them be your authority, as they were Timothy's. These are good verses for sola scriptura. Paul points out to Timothy that it was the Scripture that had been his guide (not anything else) all throughout his life.

To get a true sense of what this verse is saying look at a number of translations. Most translate the word "traditions" as "truth." That is what Paul had taught Timothy--the truth of the Scripture. For the RCC to squeeze their definition of tradition into this verse is absurd--oral or written knowledge passed down throughout the generations for centuries. How many centuries had passed from either the death of Christ to the writing of Paul's epistle here. Christ died 29 A.D. and this epistle (an early one), was written about 55. You do the math. In just 26 years or so, there was supposed to be accumulated tradition to pass on. How absurd! This proof text of the Catholics taken out of context does not mean what the Catholics intend it to mean at all. He was speaking of the truth that he had taught them--not tradition.

Good verse. It is about discipleship. We are to teach others the things that we learn from the Bible. We need to disciple others faithfully even as Paul discipled Timothy. He did it from the Word of God.

So why doesn't the Catholic Church use the Word of God, instead of being enshrined in all their liturgy?

What is the context here? What was not made known?

Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

That the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers were now one in Christ. Context is very important.

What is built upon the foundation of the apostles?
It has nothing to do with the apostate organization started in the fourth century called the RCC. He is writing specifically to the church at Ephesus. And as the local church at Ephesus was built on the foundation of Christ and the apostles, so every Bible-believing church (assembly) is. Nothing here to do with the Catholic Church.

What is the context here?

1 Corinthians 11:1-3 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The word here is "ordinances" not traditions. It means command. And if you read further it is speaking of God's command for women to keep their heads covered while in the service of the church.

The entire chapter is about the resurrection, and the gospel. Check out the first four verses. The trouble is that this is the message that neither Mike or I ever heard in the RCC! Why doesn't it preach it?

A good evangelistic passage. I have never seen an evangelistic Catholic, except for Catholic epologists on the internet. They are one of a kind. I have a neighbor that is Catholic. He doesn't like to talk about religion period. Most Catholics I meet are like that--embarrassed to talk about their faith, or religion whatsoever.

Nothing here about the Catholic Church. Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Again Paul was referring to the church at Ephesus. Every church is the pillar and ground of the truth, in that every local Bible-believing church ought to have the Bible as its foundation and the Bible as its pillar which it holds up for all to see.

Catholics are the ones with their own private interpretation which they force upon the entire Catholic Church.

Picture perfect of the Catholic church--wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction--as was done when proof texts were posted in defence of purgatory. That was a laugh.

Be more accurate now. Do you mean truthful things

But I do know what it teaches. That is where you are wrong. I also know what the Bible teaches. That is where you err.
"You err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God."

 

Nothing here about the Catholic Church. Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Again Paul was referring to the church at Ephesus. Every church is the pillar and ground of the truth, in that every local Bible-believing church ought to have the Bible as its foundation and the Bible as its pillar which it holds up for all to see.

Catholics are the ones with their own private interpretation which they force upon the entire Catholic Church.
</font>[/QUOTE]Just to pick up on two of your points:-

1. I'd hardly call the teaching of the Magisterium over the last 1900+ years a matter of 'private interpretation'! However, as I keep saying, a glance in just the Theology Forum here will show you the pernicious effects of really private interpretation, and why this Scripture forbids it.

2. If we are just talking about the church at Ephesus and, by extension, all "Bible-believing (whatever that means!) local churches", then how can you possibly claim that these churches are "the very foundation of truth" and yet have between them so many different interpretations of the what is true?


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Your point is moot, and quite trivial. What did you glance at in the Theology Forum? (This type of argument is used by Catholics much of the time). A few of the threads have to do with millennialism, which is being discussed with some fervor. There seems to be quite a variety of views and perhaps some dissention to the one who may not be well informed about the issues. Basically the issues revolve around just one event--the rapture. Does the rapture occur before the tribulation, in the middle of the tribulation, or after the tribulation? All the different varieties of millennialism are somehow connected to that one event, and where it takes place. Eschatological disagreements are interesting, common, and frequent. They have no bearing whatsoever on our salvation. Your objection is trivial. Your comparison is like apples and oranges--to use a worn out phrase. But needless to say the comparison is so far-stretched it doesn't even begin to make sense. To compare the minor differences of eschatological positions of Baptists to those positions which are heretical in the Catholic Church is absurd and ridiculous.

The teachings of the Catholic Church end up like this:
Baptismal regeneration--The result is a works salvation. Believing that baptism saves will send a person straight to hell. Only Christ can save; baptism only gets you wet.

Purgatory: Belief in purgatory is a denial that Christ paid the penalty for your sins. If Christ really did pay the penalty for your sins on the cross, then why do you have to pay for them yourself in purgatory--by being "purged" from your sins. Absolutely contrary to Scripture--even blasphemous! It takes away from the work of Christ, from his atoning blood.

Praying to the saints--It is called praying to the dead. The Biblical term is necromancy--clearly and adamantly condemned in the Bible. Why do you pray to dead people? Try and explain that in objective terms. A dead person is a dead person. Their bodies are still in the grave--and that includes Mary. Mary is nothing more than a dead sinner.

Indulgences: To add to purgatory you have indulgences--a faster way to get out of purgatory or less days in purgatory. OOHH one sin leads to another. And one false doctrine leads to another.
It was this sin, that filled the pockets of greedy priests, that so angered Luther when he went to Rome. It helped him on his way in the Reformation.

Now I have just begun. I will stop there for now, and give a chance for others to fill pages worth of false doctrine.
Can't you see the difference. You compare some varying points of theological difference in eschatology that doesn't make one iota of difference in one's salvation, or their walk with Christ. But the false doctrines that the Catholics teach send a person straight to Hell, teaching that salvation is not of grace, not of faith, and teaching pagan and false doctrines contrary to the Bible.
The Catholic Church has this "private" ungodly twisted interpretation of the Bible that they enforce on others.
On the other hand what you observe is soul liberty, working hand in hand with sola scriptura. The Bible is our authority, not the ungodly magesterium, that hold to doctrines contrary to the Bible, and force others to do the same, because of "their private interpretation."
DHK