please pick one

Originally posted by aefting:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> did you see the poll results?

Click to expand...

The people who make up the membership of the BB cover a wide range of evangelical and non-evangelical thought. Nevertheless, the results of this poll are astounding. I wonder if some of the votes were not cast in seriousness but rather done to "get the goat" of some of us fundamentalists or to protest hyper-fundamentalism of some sort.

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]my guess is that the ones that picked fundamental Christianity were not being serious.

i would of thought most would pick catholic with muslim second and charismatic and liberal third. although liberal is the fastest growing damaging religion

I chose fundamentalism and, stated so first off, because I truly believe it is the largest growing cult in Christendom. It does more damage than all the rest combined in turning people off religion, let alone off evangelical Christianity.

Cheers,

Jim

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
You don't understand "Christ alone," do you? Please read the actual writings of the Church instead of the anti-Catholic polemics that are around. For example, the Council of Trent says quite clearly that justification is brought through Christ and Christ alone.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, while some here are overstating the case, it is quite clear that you do not understand Trent and Catholic doctrine. It is you who should read what the church teaches, rather than what people tell you it teaches. Trent very clearly teaches that Justification comes through things other than Christ alone or faith.

The New Catechism teaches that Baptism confers justification and conforms us to the righteousness of God. This is serious departure from the Bible. The SCriptures never teach that justification comes by Baptism.

Trent said, "IF anyone says that jsutice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruit and signs of justificatio obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema" (Canon 24). You need to digest this. It is clear that in the RCC justification is merited by the works of man and your statement that "justification is brought through Christ and Christ alone" is refuted by teh very document you try to find support in. That is weak research and argumentation on your part.

Trent continues, "If anyone says that the good works of trhe one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs of the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose livign member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase in glroy, let him be anathema" (Canon 32). Again, digest this carefully. Trent says that if you claim that the good works are wholly of God and therefore non-meritorious for salvation, then you are anathema. You stated, If you read the catechisms of the Catholic Church, you will see that they believe in Christ alone and in grace alone. Works are a result of faith.. Quite clearly you do not know what the RCC teaches for their very wording says something exactly the opposite.

The RCC does teach the necessity of grace. But they teach infused righteousness, not imputed righteousness. That important distinction is what makes their church doctrine unbiblical. You should avail yourself of the work of R.C. Sproul in Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. He does a good job of hashing through some of these issues that are too easily being clouded over in the modern pluralism.

We could go on and on. Suffice it to say that you are demonstrating an insufficient and biased knowledge of the doctrine of the RCC. I do not necessarily agree with everything that has here been stated about the RCC. I do not think there is enough information to call it the whore of Revelation. We simply cannot know that. But we do not need to misrepresent their doctrine to try to paint them into heaven.

I fully believe there are some Catholics that are saved. But it is in spite of their church's doctrine, not becuase of it. During the blackout several weeks ago, I spent three hours talking to my neighbor on his porch who is a devout Catholic and is convinced his works are going to get him into heaven. He knows what his church teaches.

And what about people who believe that man must accept Christ before salvation is given? Are they adding to salvation?

Click to expand...

No, because that is quite clearly what biblical salvation is.

Here is the body count (in Millions):

41 Total Christian marytrs 33AD-1990AD
24 Secular Governments
12 AStheists (overlaps Secular Gov)
6 Muslims
5 Roman Catholics
2 Buddhists (those sweek kind persons)
0.23 Pagans

Source: The Almanac of the Christiran
World, 1991-1999 Edition (Tyndale House, 1990),
page 502.

Originally posted by Jim1999:
I chose fundamentalism and, stated so first off, because I truly believe it is the largest growing cult in Christendom. It does more damage than all the rest combined in turning people off religion, let alone off evangelical Christianity.

Cheers,

Jim

Click to expand...

yea jim and you picked wrong, and it is good that it gets people turned off of religion, that is the point off religion and on to Christ.
you should have pick liberal it it much more the damaging cult.

Jim wrote:
I chose fundamentalism and, stated so first off, because I truly believe it is the largest growing cult in Christendom.

Click to expand...

I wish that were the case but I highly doubt it.

It does more damage than all the rest combined in turning people off religion, let alone off evangelical Christianity.

Click to expand...

So, we can have billions of people, maybe the majority of the world's population, lead astray to eternal damnation by the false teachings of Hinduism, Islam, unbelieving liberalism, and the various cults but we protest against a small segment of evangelicalism that simply tries to maintain purity of doctrine and practice? Oh no, we can't tolerate that!

Andy

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
With all due respect, while some here are overstating the case, it is quite clear that you do not understand Trent and Catholic doctrine. It is you who should read what the church teaches, rather than what people tell you it teaches. Trent very clearly teaches that Justification comes through things other than Christ alone or faith.

Click to expand...

I've actually read through the document, unlike others who are merely cutting and pasting from anti-Catholic websites.

Trent said, "IF anyone says that jsutice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruit and signs of justificatio obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema" (Canon 24). You need to digest this. It is clear that in the RCC justification is merited by the works of man and your statement that "justification is brought through Christ and Christ alone" is refuted by teh very document you try to find support in. That is weak research and argumentation on your part.

Click to expand...

Again, what does this say - does it say that justification comes from works? Or is Canon 24 talking about what happens after justification? There is an important distinction. It is not saying that works justifies us. It is saying that after we are justified by Christ (canon I), our works keep us justified. Do I agree with that? Not at all. However, Canon 24 is NOT saying that works save us.

Trent continues, "If anyone says that the good works of trhe one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs of the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose livign member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase in glroy, let him be anathema" (Canon 32). Again, digest this carefully. Trent says that if you claim that the good works are wholly of God and therefore non-meritorious for salvation, then you are anathema.

Click to expand...

This is after one's justification by Christ. Please go back and read some of the other canons, particularly the earlier ones.

You stated, If you read the catechisms of the Catholic Church, you will see that they believe in Christ alone and in grace alone. Works are a result of faith.. Quite clearly you do not know what the RCC teaches for their very wording says something exactly the opposite.

Click to expand...

Catholics do believe in Christ alone and in grace alone. With this, I did not misspeak. Works keep a person saved, which is a result of their faith. Canon 24 does NOT say that good works are not the result of faith, but that they are not MERELY the result of faith. Catholics believe that one must work to remain justified. I don't agree with that, but I do not think that the belief of this is enough to damn someone to Hell, in spite of their belief in Christ.

The RCC does teach the necessity of grace. But they teach infused righteousness, not imputed righteousness. That important distinction is what makes their church doctrine unbiblical. You should avail yourself of the work of R.C. Sproul in Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. He does a good job of hashing through some of these issues that are too easily being clouded over in the modern pluralism.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, Catholics actually believe in inputed righteousness AND infused righteousness. Many Arminians do as well. Does this mean that they are unable to enter Heaven?

We could go on and on. Suffice it to say that you are demonstrating an insufficient and biased knowledge of the doctrine of the RCC.

Click to expand...

Insufficient? Nah. Biased? I will admit that I am more inclined to find similarities with my brothers and sisters in Christ than trying to find a fatal flaw in their doctrine that will cause me to call them a whore. So, I suppose in that way, I am admittedly biased.

I do not necessarily agree with everything that has here been stated about the RCC. I do not think there is enough information to call it the whore of Revelation. We simply cannot know that. But we do not need to misrepresent their doctrine to try to paint them into heaven.

Click to expand...

Salvation comes from belief in Jesus Christ. They believe that, then they are saved. Period.

I fully believe there are some Catholics that are saved. But it is in spite of their church's doctrine, not becuase of it. During the blackout several weeks ago, I spent three hours talking to my neighbor on his porch who is a devout Catholic and is convinced his works are going to get him into heaven. He knows what his church teaches.

Click to expand...

I've talked to many Catholics as well, both in Birmingham, and here in Florida. They are convinced they are going to Heaven. How? Because of the death and resurrection of the Saviour Whom they have accepted. That convinces me that they are bound for the promised land. Maybe we just know different people. Maybe we listen for different things.

Fact is, whosoever will can come. And whoever does will be my neighbor in Heaven.

Ask a non-believer today what they think of Christ. Ask them what they think of Christianity. More than likely the answers will be very different.

Then figure out why they are different. Many, many times, the answer is how fundamentalist Christians had treated them.

That is why I selected fundamentalist Christianity. The ones I've been exposed to have been more of a cult than any of the other religions I've seen.

If you lined up the 10% most liberal preachers
and shot them. There would still be 10% of
the preachers the most liberal left.
In fact, with an average preacher life of 8 years,
you could draw and quarter the 10% most
liberal preachers year after year and never
run out of preachers.

Luke 12:5 (KJV1769):
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Amen, Jesus -- Preach it!

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
I think damaging and cultish should have been separated so I could have voted for more than one. It was very hard to choose. I voted for most damage potential.

Diane

Click to expand...

Same here. So I had to skip Hindus and Islam as not prominent enough in America to do as much damage as some of the others. Of course, I also had to assume the poll was referring to our part of the world. Although Catholicism is very cultish, I'd have to think that there are saved people in it, whereas that's virtually impossible among the JWs. Fundamentalist Christianity was an interesting choice to see listed, but legalism or a related term would have been much more precise and provocative. And did someone mention the LDS were missing?

I did mention Mormonism was missing and I think it is quite a threat to the churches today. I've read numbers that show Baptists are leaving the fold for the LDS lie. How very sad and scary!

Diane

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Ask a non-believer today what they think of Christ. Ask them what they think of Christianity. More than likely the answers will be very different.

Then figure out why they are different. Many, many times, the answer is how fundamentalist Christians had treated them.

That is why I selected fundamentalist Christianity. The ones I've been exposed to have been more of a cult than any of the other religions I've seen.

Click to expand...

Greetings Scott:

I hope that all is going well in your ministry.
Although you and I are very much "like minded" I am not sure that I agree with you here.
I am quite "progressive" when compared to some; however, I find that many true fundamentalists are very strict in their own lives, but would not dare pass judgement upon someone else's life.
My personal experience is that the Legalists are the greatest danger. Many Legalists spew their uneducated and unscriptural views onto Christians, sowing discord among the Brethren. Many of these Legalists devote more energy to destroying other Believers than they do to spreading the Gospel. Perhaps they don't realize that a lost world is watching......

Then again, my choice wasn't on the list!!

[ September 23, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

Revelation 17
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Who or what organization is a potential candidate for this "drunken" woman?

How about the organization that caused The Crusades, The Spanish and Latin Inquisitions, The mass slaughter of Albigenses, Huguenots, anabaptists and Waldenses whose corpses (men, women and babies) were strewn all over the Italian Alps and Piedmont Valley.

Here is Milton's sonnet after a Church of Rome massacre of the Vaudois (Pre-Reformation Bible belivers) in the Piedmont Valley:

On the Late Massacre in Piedmont

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshiped stocks and stones;
Forget not: in thy book record their groans
Who were thy sheep and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O'er all th' Italian fields where still doth sway
The triple tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundred-fold, who having learnt thy way
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.

Some historians assess the Church of Rome (actually the "holy" Roman Empire) body count of upwards to 20-50 million souls.

http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/foxm/findex.htm

To put one's stamp of approval on this Church (In my estimation) causes one to share in their blood guilt. I do understand the plight of fear that Catholics are under and I have deep compassion for them. I am a former Catholic.

As Pastor Larry said, Catholic folks get saved in spite of their church. Over 40 years ago in the US Air Force, I was saved through reading a Bible and listening to radio gospel preachers. I was Catholic , two years later after my faith was strengthened by the Word of God I left the Church of Rome. Two years later my wife and I were baptized together at Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston.

Actually I chose muslim as the most dangerous currently.

I am also surprised at the large vote for fundamental Christianity. Go figure?

HankD

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Ask a non-believer today what they think of Christ. Ask them what they think of Christianity. More than likely the answers will be very different.

Then figure out why they are different. Many, many times, the answer is how fundamentalist Christians had treated them.

That is why I selected fundamentalist Christianity. The ones I've been exposed to have been more of a cult than any of the other religions I've seen.

Click to expand...

Greetings Scott:

I hope that all is going well in your ministry.
Although you and I are very much "like minded" I am not sure that I agree with you here.
I am quite "progressive" when compared to some; however, I find that many true fundamentalists are very strict in their own lives, but would not dare pass judgement upon someone else's life.
My personal experience is that the Legalists are the greatest danger. Many Legalists spew their uneducated and unscriptural views onto Christians, sowing discord among the Brethren. Many of these Legalists devote more energy to destroying other Believers than they do to spreading the Gospel. Perhaps they don't realize that a lost world is watching......

Then again, my choice wasn't on the list!! </font>[/QUOTE]I would agree with you here. However, I've noticed that for the fundamentalists that I have in mind, legalism fits them like a glove. They are, indeed, the ones who spend more time destroying other believers and condemning the world than they do spreading the Gospel. I cannot understand how anyone who has been set free from the bondage of sin and death could not love their neighbor, and decide to sit in derision and condemnation instead.

Those of you who object to the large numbers voting for fundamentalism - I would hazard a guess that this is a result of the negative experiences of the posters concerned of that particular brand of Christianity, bordering in some cases, I would suspect, on psychological abuse. Now, that does not mean that all fundamentalit Christianity is like that (anymore than all Catholic priests are paedophiles) - far from it - but some of it is, and it's the bad news that makes the headlines

Yours in Christ

Matt

I find it sad that 18 out of 55 users picked fundamental Christianity (32%).

Out of all the religions mentioned, fundamental Christianity is the only one teaching the correct doctrine and preaching the truth of God's Word.

Amen, Sister Sue! Amen!


Matt. 5
[11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Matt.7
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Author: Jesus Christ

Ladies, I've given a likely reason as to why that might be so...more to do with the medium than the message methinks

Yours in Christ

Matt

Originally posted by Jailminister:
I picked the "great whore" church that has been the mother of "Harlots".

There's no hope in the pope

Click to expand...

Taking this to a new discussion: please read the new subject and post a reply.

(I am not necessarily addressing just you, Jailminister: your quote is directly related to the subject!!)