Christians Evangelizing Catholics

Originally posted by neal4christ:
Yes, I agree with you when you say that many people attribute things to the Catholic Church that is not indeed taught by them. That was the first thing that bothered me greatly, and really peaked my interest to study it deeper.

In Christ,
Neal

Click to expand...

Dear Brother Neal,

There is very much that is good, and pure, and holy in the heritage, tradition, and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. But like every other Christian church it has it flaws. I encourage you to continue to study the Roman Catholic Church, but to do so very carefully and objectively, and, most of all, with very much prayer for the insight and direction that only God can give you.

With much love and affection in Christ Jesus,

CBTS

As for Purgatory, there are many Baptists, including several on this message board, that vehemently argue that all unrighteous born-again Christians will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ. Do you find the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory to be even as heretical as that Baptist doctrine?

Click to expand...

Huh??

When was that argued here by Baptists?

In Christ,

Bob

Huh??

When was that argued here by Baptists?

Click to expand...

It has been an on-going argument for some time in several different threads in the "Baptist Theology and Bible Study" forum. The chief advocates for this and other heterodox doctrines on this message board are Lacy Evans, James Newman, and av161ljim.

There are some severe problems with RC theology that rule out its adherents from being saved. In this modern age of ecumenism, the issues of the Reformation have been glossed over, but they have not changed. The RCC has never repudiated its position that salvation comes by faith plus works. That is "another gospel" in terms of Paul, a gospel which cannot save. Salvation, in Scripture, is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The RCC for more than 1500 years has rejected the teaching of Scripture on this point. They have asserted the saving efficacy of baptism and the Mass, neither of which is biblical, both of which represent salvation in something other than Christ alone.

Their explanations that the works are really Christ's fall short of both sense and theological revelation.

There may well be true Christians in the RCC, but if so, it is in spite of the RCC's doctrine and not because of it. True believers do not believe what the Catholic church teaches. The sad fact is that many have been guiled into believing that the RCC teaches truth, and have not compared their teachign with that of Christ and his apostles.

It is sad that in a day with such knowledge about God we have people still stuck in teh chains of Roman Catholicism and some even converting to it. We should pray and work for the word of the Lord to run and be glorified in freeing people to true salvation in Christ.

Originally posted by grace56:
As far as praying for the dead read 2 Tim 1:16-18 in which you will read that Paul prayed for his dead fiend Onesiphorus.


saved56

Click to expand...

That would be a good one to "quote" Show him praing FOR the dead - and show him prahing TO the dead.

This is the vaccuum from which the RCC must find support for there are no scriptures doing it. (at least none that you could use here)

In Christ,

bob

Originally posted by grace56:
As far as praying for the dead read 2 Tim 1:16-18 in which you will read that Paul prayed for his dead fiend Onesiphorus.
saved56

Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch if you look at the context.

Luke 16:19-31, "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' "And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham ^said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

And in that case one DID rise from the dead - Jesus Christ! And STILL they did not listen.

But nobody was praying to Christ while dead.

And nobody in Timothy is praying to the dead or FOR the dead.

God's Word specifically prohibits communication with the dead!

God's Word ALSO tells us "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die and THEN comes the judgment"

(Something we have to keep reminding the Mormons about).

So getting the dead out of trouble - is not possible.

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
There are some severe problems with RC theology that rule out its adherents from being saved. In this modern age of ecumenism, the issues of the Reformation have been glossed over, but they have not changed. The RCC has never repudiated its position that salvation comes by faith plus works. That is "another gospel" in terms of Paul, a gospel which cannot save. Salvation, in Scripture, is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The RCC for more than 1500 years has rejected the teaching of Scripture on this point. They have asserted the saving efficacy of baptism and the Mass, neither of which is biblical, both of which represent salvation in something other than Christ alone.

Their explanations that the works are really Christ's fall short of both sense and theological revelation.

There may well be true Christians in the RCC, but if so, it is in spite of the RCC's doctrine and not because of it. True believers do not believe what the Catholic church teaches. The sad fact is that many have been guiled into believing that the RCC teaches truth, and have not compared their teachign with that of Christ and his apostles.

It is sad that in a day with such knowledge about God we have people still stuck in teh chains of Roman Catholicism and some even converting to it. We should pray and work for the word of the Lord to run and be glorified in freeing people to true salvation in Christ.

Click to expand...

I find it absolutely disgusting that a man who calls himself a Baptist would so desecrate our faith and heritage by posting such a reply as this. It not only represents the very anti-theses of the teaching of our Savior and the apostles, but represents the most pernicious attitude imaginable toward our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church, including the family members and close friends of many of the members of this board. The English language does not have the vocabulary for me to express the disdain that I feel towards such diabolical replies on a Christian message board.

Is it any wonder that a Roman Catholic Pope once called the Protestant Church the “enemy of the cross of Christ” when protestants post as this man has done! I am outraged beyond words!

CBTS

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grace56:
As far as praying for the dead read 2 Tim 1:16-18 in which you will read that Paul prayed for his dead fiend Onesiphorus.
saved56

Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch if you look at the context.

Luke 16:19-31, "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' "And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham ^said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' " </font>[/QUOTE]gb,

Just exactly where in Luke 16:19-31 do you find 2 Tim 1:16-18?

2 Tim. 1: 16. The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains;
17. but when he was in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me--
18. the Lord grant to him to find mercy from the Lord on that day--and you know very well what services he rendered at Ephesus. (NASB, 1995)

Walter Lock, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, wrote in his commentary in the I.C.C. series on the Pastoral Epistles:

The context implies that Onesiphorus was separated from his family, probably that he was dead . . . and so would provide a sanction for prayer for the departed. This, in this simple form, is a natural instinct; it was practised by some later Jews, cf. 2 Mac 12:43-45, and is found in early Christian epitaphs and in the liturgies; cf. Plummer, ad loc.; Gayford, The Future State, c. 4. Wohlenberg quotes the Acts of Paul and Thecla, § 28, which is a prayer that a heathen may be transferred after death to the abode of the righteous.

Click to expand...

Craig,

You attack me for stating the truth. That is what is unconscionable. If you have studied history and theology then you know the truth and you know what i said was the truth. They believe in teh false doctrine of infused righteousness. They believe in baptismal regeneration. They believe in the efficacy of the Mass. These are all unbiblical teaching. I did not attack our brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church. I pointed out the soul damning doctrine that the church teaches. Our loyalty must first be to the word of God, not to human institutions. The RCC departed from biblical teaching many many centuries ago and they have proclaimed Bible believers to be accursed. They have never repudiated their false doctrine and repented and returned to hte truth. Until they do, they will remain outside the faith.

Pastor Larry:

Such claims will solve nothing. Catholics and Baptists can run in cirlces for an eternity on exactly how to read the Bible, and what role tradition plays in the life of the church, and nothing will be settled. You will have to come about condemnation in another way, because if you say something to the effect of "Mariology is not biblical" all a Catholic has to say is, "right, but we have never adhered to sola scriptura, so to judge us by your standards is erroneous." One must keep in mind that even if you disagree with a church (thinking here of Easter Orthodox, Catholic, and Coptic), these churches have been around since the 1st centruy, and countless millions of faithful have died within them...I hope not a one here is ready to condemn them all, and if you are not, then is not the grace of God working within the church, even if you read his word differently?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

Re baptismal regeneration: no-one has answered my request for an interpretation of I Peter 3:21....Who's being unbiblical here?

The last poster was right: we can argue the toss, all of us (yes, Catholics included) from Scripture until we're blue in the face. But it is unconscionable for us to damn Catholics for adhering to eg: baptismal regeneration as it is for them to damn us for ignoring I Peter 3:21, or for me to damn a Baptist for adhering to the (IMNSVHO) heretical and unbiblical doctrine of KJVOism, or for being a premillenial dispensationalist, with which I also disagree. we can't go round pronouncing anathemas on everyone who disagrees with our own peculiar interpretation of Scripture.

Yours in Christ

Matt

The only claims that matter are the claims of Scripture. That is what settles it. The Catholics have gone outside the Bible to establish unbiblical doctrines. It is those doctrines that are at question, and it is those doctrines that place RC theology outside of orthodoxy in the biblical sense.

There has been no debate about this historically, until the last few years. The truth is this: Either we are right or they are right. We are not both right. There is one doctrine and one faith and it is revealed in Scripture where God has given us everything necessary to for every good work. We do not need the Pope and the bishops. We need the word of God.

As for these churches being around since the first century, that is historical revisionism. In the first century, there was one church, the apostolic church. In the centuries following, various groups began to split off of that, and in taht was the arrival of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, etc. There are different churches because people have departed from Scripture.

As for baptismal regeneration, salvation in Scripture is by faith alone, not by baptism. I will try to post more on 1 Peter 3 later, when I have a few extra minutes. Suffice it to say at this point Scripture teaches clearly that salvation is by faith, not by baptism.

We should condemn Baptists who hold to KJVOnlyism. There is no Scripture to back that up. Dispensational premillennialism, on the other hand, is a position that takes into account the full revelation of Scripture and does so more consistently than the alternatives. Those two things are clearly not in the same camp, since the latter has good biblical support and the former does not. But neither of them fits in with the Catholic doctrine of soteriology. Those doctrines are not soul damning. One can believe them without ramifications for eternal life. The same cannot be said about RC soteriology, and that is where we must draw the line.

We need not pronounce anathemas on every who disagrees with our particular interpretation. But neither can we ignore the plain teaching of Scripture and the testimony of history to broaden the unbrella of the church. We have to stand on the self-attesting truth of God's word and against those who would adulterate it.

Pastor Larry,

The earliest writings we have from the earliest Christians (outside of Holy Scripture) used relevent sources that eventually would not be cannonized into Holy Scritpure in 391. The Church realized that just because we did not cannonize these works (from which come beliefs such as much of Catholic, and Orthodox Mariology) does not mean that the writings were heretical, thus your claim that any Unbiblical belief is heretical is inaccurate. The Bible was not cannonized so that ALL Christian doctrine would found in one place; rather, it was cannonized so that Christians would have a large framework from which they could understand the beliefs being taught to them, and also to combat many heresies of the day, predominately those of Marcion. How, then, can one 1600 years later denounce these men by using the book they formulated from scattered epistles, and gospels, and say that they got it wrong? It does not make sense! Also, while I do not adhere to double truth fallicy, I do not believe things are always in terms of "right and wrong." Due to our fallen nature, we can both be shown glimpses of the truth that supercedes our understanding, even if those differences seem to be in direct conflict with each other...I'm not sure if I am making my point clear here...perhaps I will try later when I have more time to expound upon this.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Re baptismal regeneration: no-one has answered my request for an interpretation of I Peter 3:21....Who's being unbiblical here?

Click to expand...

OK, Matt -

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits [now] in prison,
1Pe 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through [the] water.
1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB-U)

The flood waters were a judgment on the wicked of Noah’s day. The water did not save the wicked – it KILLED them! The ark was what saved the eight from the waters that brought judgment to cleanse the earth of the sinful creatures.

We are wicked creatures, immersed in sin, whose only hope is to be born-up and raised from the waters of judgment and destruction by (through) Jesus Christ (the ark). Today, water can quench our thirst, clean us or drown us, but it can’t save us! Only being found in Christ Jesus can save us.

Baptism by immersion is a beautiful symbol and demonstration of this truth in the life of a Christian.

My two cents.

If you have studied history and theology then you know the truth and you know what i said was the truth.

Click to expand...

You know very well that I have studied both history and theology, including Roman Catholic theology, and I know for a fact that what you wrote is a gross perversion of the truth.

It is all too common for Baptists to view other the theology of other denomination from the Baptist point of view, and when they do that, especially when they study it at a very superficial level, they get an exceedingly distorted picture. In order to understand Roman Catholicism it is necessary to view it from the point of view of a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic scholars who write about Baptist theology do a good job of immersing themselves into that theology, and it is about time that Baptist theologians showed the Roman Catholics the same courtesy.

Also, Larry, your personal theology and understanding of the Gospel is seriously at variance with the teachings of our Savior and His apostles on a number of issues and you have no room to talk about anyone else being in theological error.

1 Pet. 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (NASB, 1995)

These verses, as they have come down to us, expressly teach baptismal regeneration. “Eight persons were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.” Water baptism does not save you by removing dirt from the flesh, but by the appeal that it expresses to God “for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”

Those Baptist who take exception to this passage of Scripture and mutilate it to fit their private interpretation of the Bible might want to consider that unless 1 Per. 3:18-22 has not come down to us accurately, or is not inspired Scripture, they are mutilating the words of God. Personally, I do not know for sure what the case is here, but this passages as we have it expressly teaches Baptismal Regeneration, and to condemn Christians who believe this passage in the Bible is to condemn Christians for choosing to Believe the Bible. If that is not another Gospel . . . .

May I suggest that you carefully and prayerfully read Mat_28:19; Mar_16:16; Act_2:38, Act_22:16; Rom_6:3-6; 1Co_12:13; Gal_3:27; Eph_5:26; Col_2:12; and Tit_3:5-7 in the light of 1 Pet.3:18-22 and see if you find any contradictions, or perhaps support for 1 Pet.3:18-22 as it has come down to us.

The earliest writings we have from the earliest Christians (outside of Holy Scripture) used relevent sources that eventually would not be cannonized into Holy Scritpure in 391. The Church realized that just because we did not cannonize these works (from which come beliefs such as much of Catholic, and Orthodox Mariology) does not mean that the writings were heretical, thus your claim that any Unbiblical belief is heretical is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

You are confusing extrabiblical with unbiblical. What is heretical is unbiblical truth. There are many documents of church history, both ancient and recent, that are not unbiblical. They are extrabiblical. They are not necessarily heretical until they become unbiblical (and there are certainly plenty of those).

The Bible was not cannonized so that ALL Christian doctrine would found in one place; rather, it was cannonized so that Christians would have a large framework from which they could understand the beliefs being taught to them,

Click to expand...

No, simplsitically speaking, the canon was recognized formally in order to distinguish the word of God from the other documents. The church did not establish canonicity; they recognized what God has already inspired to be canonized.

How, then, can one 1600 years later denounce these men by using the book they formulated from scattered epistles, and gospels, and say that they got it wrong? It does not make sense!

Click to expand...

They did not formulate the book. They recognized the inspired Scripture. Scripture, by virtue of inspiration has authority, not the canonizing body. That is often overlooked by some. The Scriptures are the authority, not the men.

Also, while I do not adhere to double truth fallicy, I do not believe things are always in terms of "right and wrong."

Click to expand...

The fact that some may not see it is a testimony to our human dimness, not to the possibility of contradictory things being wrong. Our human minds are darkened by sin, including the popes and the bishops. The Scripture is the authority that is never darkened by sin.

You know very well that I have studied both history and theology, including Roman Catholic theology, and I know for a fact that what you wrote is a gross perversion of the truth.

Click to expand...

Honestly, Craig, and as lovingly as I can say it, you have given no evidence here that you have seriously studied church history and theology. And the fact that you think what I said is a gross perversion of the truth is evidence of that. People who know history and theology do not believe that. Roman Catholic theology is pretty easy to understand and readily available. The Reformation happened for a reason. After 1000 years, there was a great public realization that the RCC and the Bible did not teach the same thing. There had always been a smaller scale recognition of that, but in the 1500s with the advent of the printing press and the rise of literacy and scholasticism, combined with the courage of men, the issues came to a head. The facts underlying that division have not changed.

For the sake of argument, we might admit that the RCC is right. Even if they were, they still do not believe the same thing we do, and no amount of "loving the brethren" or rewriting church history will change that. We have fundamental differences. We are not both right. The Scripture testifies clearly to the truth of our position. The only mitigating factor for the RCC is the insertion of a level of papal authority by which the Scriptures plain interpretation can be countermanded. The Bible admits of no such insertion of authority and neither should we. Without the papal authority for interpretation, their whole system crumbles. It cannot stand the weight of hte Scriptures on it.

I have seen enough from you to have absolutely no confidence in your history and very little in your theology. This exchange only compounds that. To say that we teach basically the same thing and to say that the RCC teaches what Scripture does is evidence that you either do not know Scripture or do not know RCC theology, and possibly even both (that would not be uncommon).

Also, Larry, your personal theology and understanding of the Gospel is seriously at variance with the teachings of our Savior and His apostles on a number of issues and you have no room to talk about anyone else being in theological error.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not under the illusion that I am 100% correct on everything. But I do believe what the Scriptures teach and I know of no area at which I am at variance with the clear teaching of our Savior and the apostles, most certainly not on salvation. Christ spoke clearly to this issue and we do not get to rewrite it.

As for 1 PEter 3, it is clear that Baptism is about the conscience. It plainly says that in the text. You have changed it to make it about the soul. Even a cursory glance at resources will debunk the notion that Peter was teaching baptismal regeneration. Scripture is clear that salvation comes by faith alone, not by faith plus baptism, or faith plus anything else.

Briefly, iIn the passage, it is likened in some way to the flood. What was the relationship with Noah and the water? Noah was saved from water, not by water. He was saved because he believed God and acted on it. The flood was an antitype, and as we well know, there is not a one for one correspondence between the two. Water baptism is the affirmation or testimony of a good conscience toward God. It is the outward expression of the inward conscience regenerated through faith.

You cannot take a whole testament of truth about salvation and contradict it with one difficult passage that all agree is somewhat obscure. There has been much written on this, and I do not have time to reproduce that all here today. Suffice it to say about Peter what Peter said about Paul, that in his writings are some things hard to understand. But that does not mean they contradict Scripture. Salvation in Scripture is based on belief. Baptism is the outward expression of that inward belief.

But I do believe what the Scriptures teach

Click to expand...

You believe what you personally choose to believe and this entire post proves that to be the case. And as though that is not enough, you arrogantly write that those who disagree with your pet theologies are heretics. Shame on you!