• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

about the Catholic Church

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"...certain tendancies approaching pagan thought."

--a nice way to say: it is paganistic idolatry

One more time--let us get this discussion off the "fence". This is about divine authority to function, not about what an ever changing catechism may have said or may say today or tomorrow.

The RCC claims their authority from Matthew, Ch. 16: 18-20. Jesus supposedly confers to Peter, the Apostle, the papacy and the authority to be the vicar of Christ, with the keys to heaven.

This claim has to be either true or false. If true, the RCC is the only entity on the planet with divine authority--all others are apostate and separated from the True Church. If the claim is false, then Rome is without authority--never had any to start with--and the same could be said for anything which has come out of Rome.

It is black and white--a church either has proper authority or it has usurped authority which is no authority at all--like having a million dollars-- in counterfeit bills.

The daughters of Rome are going back to their mother--ecumenism is alive and well. What of the Bride of Christ? She never had anything to do with Rome anyway. She is still without blemish, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Living4Him

New Member
That which is known as the RCC today came from an unholy marriage of "a church??" and the State at the hands of the one called Constantine The Great
Constantine had nothing to do with the start of the Catholic Church. Constantine's Edict of Milan made Christianity a religion that would be tolerated. He ended the Roman Emperor's persecussion of Christians.

If true, the RCC is the only entity on the planet with divine authority--all others are apostate and separated from the True Church.
Every Bishop can trace their ordination in a line back to one of the Apostles.

Can any other denomination?
 

Living4Him

New Member
What I don't understand why do so many people (baptist/protestants) believe that they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell?

Also, another question I have...if you read about the ancient worlds being pagan and then they were Christianized, why are these Christian nations Catholic and not something else? Am I to believe that "baptist" or whatnot did not care about Christ's Great Commision until after the Reformation?

It seems to me that people should be more concerned with bringing Christ to those who do not believe in Christ or know about His redeeming sacrifice.

Christian Religions are:
Catholic
Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Assembly of God
Pentacostal
Church of Christ
Seventh Day Adventist
Presbyterian
Anglican
Episcopalian

I apologize if I left any out

Non-Christian Religions are:
Baha'i Faith
Buddhism
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Vodun (Voodoo)
Etc. These are the ones that we should be concerned about and not trying to get some Christian to attend our church because they are "lost"
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Sirach has a good point - if you are going to complain about RC teaching we should quote from official RC sources - not build up a straw man and then attack it.

I've posted numerous times that all you need to do is show me with a link to the Catechism where I am wrong, and I will change my view.

See, I've actually read large parts of the Catechism and haven't found a single contradiction.

Everyone here can go to the Catechism and see who's right. As I have also stated, and asked someone to correct me with links to it so that I may know the truth to what the Catholic Church teaches. Hasn't happened yet.

If I'm wrong it would be easy to prove it with links to the Catechism...
There are TWO things in that post.

#1. What does the RC actually say - (is it JUST what Sirach says or is there "something more" in "OFFICIAL" RC documents?

#2. Is it true (as Sirach points out above) that if you take the Catechism verbatim - it has no contradiction with the Word of God.

-- These are valid things to verify.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
And here is something that could use "some investigation"

That is why it's important to read what the first Christians wrote about the Scriptures. We know that the Church that Christ built will never be overcome, any Church that cannot trace itself back to 33 AD - in Faith and lineage, cannot be the Church Christ built.
In Acts 20 Paul tells us of the apostacy that would arise "From among your own selves".

In 2Thess 2 Paul predicts apostacy in the church and "the falling away".

Error comes "from within the church" according to NT authors.

When error comes in and part of the church rejects it -- "who is the church"??

The Catholics would argue that the greater portion "is the church" even if it swallows error and the lesser part clings to truth.

They then claim that those who trace their "line of faith" back through those small groups clinging to truth - are not really tracing back a line of truth since only the errors of the RCC should be consider 'real lines to be traced' back to the first century.

How say you?

In Christ,

Bob
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The "righteous" in this passage are the ones who carry out the works of charity referred to therein.
So you conclude that it was these works which saved them?

This passage has to weighed with others that talk of faith-based salvation but evangelicals cannot dismiss this out of hand any more than Catholics should dismiss faith-based passages. Some kind of interpretative synthesis is clearly demanded
And as you can see, I did not "dismiss this out of hand". I did provide an "interpretive synthesis".

Can you dispute the Scriptures I have provided for the interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46? If I provided anything out of context please give correction.

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

D28guy

New Member
Living4Him,

"What I don't understand why do so many people (baptist/protestants) believe that they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell?"
"...they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell"
This site does not have a "post #" for each post on a thread like some other sites like this have, but a post can be identified by thread, date, and time.

I'm not a Baptist btw, but could you post the thread, date, and time for the posts where any baptists, or non-baptist evangelicals like myself, have said that "they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell".

Thanks,

Mike
 

D28guy

New Member
This passage has to weighed with others that talk of faith-based salvation but evangelicals cannot dismiss this out of hand any more than Catholics should dismiss faith-based passages. Some kind of interpretative synthesis is clearly demanded
And here it is:

We are justified by embracing Christ through faith alone, and placing our complete trust in His work of redemption on our behalf.

Upon doing that, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who begins the process of changing us...experientially...from the "old man" into the "new man" that we have already become....positionally.

This will result in fruit...or works...that reflect the fact that we "meant it" when we trusted Christ, rather than just paying "lip service", so to speak, for any number of illegitimate reasons.

The "works" are an overflow of a very real change internally...through faith alone...and have no part in gaining, or maintaining, our justification.

I'm not the most eloquent of speakers or writers, but I believe that reconciles the scriptures from Romans, Galciens, Ephesians, and anywhere else concerning the truth of justification by faith alone, with the "works" passages from James that many attempt to twist and butcher to support a false gospel of works justification.

God bless,

Mike
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
In Acts 17 we find that the words of Paul himself are to be "tested" against scripture.

Everytime the subject of "sola scriptura" is brought up with RC posters - they object to having the words of the church "tested" to see "if those things are true".

And yet in Acts 17 that is exactly what we see happening - the words of Paul are tested against the scriptures (the OT in this case) to "see IF those things said by Paul are true".

In Christ,

Bob
 

D28guy

New Member
Bob Ryan,

"Sirach has a good point - if you are going to complain about RC teaching we should quote from official RC sources - not build up a straw man and then attack it."
Thats the reason why myself, DHK, Stearns, and others have quoted extensively from Catholic sources.

The Council of Trent, The Catholic Catechism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc.

We have done precisely as Stirach requested, yet he continues to say over and over again that we arent.

He is not telling the truth when he says we are not quoting from Catholic sources.

Go back and read the previous...now locked...thread ("The Holy Roman Catholic Church") on this very board and you will see us quoting from Catholic sources over and over and over again.

God bless,

Mike
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Living4Him:
These are the ones that we should be concerned about and not trying to get some Christian to attend our church because they are "lost"
I agree that reaching the "unchurched" is a big part of the church mission today. (Of course the Baptist Messag board is probably not the place "to find the unchurched" or the hindus).

But on this forum - we have a good place to discuss a huge section of NT, Christian history with all of its good - and its evil. The same history that Muslims, Hindus etc will be bringing up to Christians as "proof" that Christianity is bogus.

And on this forum - we have a good opportunity to "notice" that this HUGE chunk of history and the actions (good or bad) taken by the church in those dark ages - did not go unnoticed by God.

In Christ,

Bob
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by D28guy:
Bob Ryan,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Sirach has a good point - if you are going to complain about RC teaching we should quote from official RC sources - not build up a straw man and then attack it."
Thats the reason why myself, DHK, Stearns, and others have quoted extensively from Catholic sources.

The Council of Trent, The Catholic Catechism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc.

We have done precisely as Stirach requested, yet he continues to say over and over again that we arent.

He is not telling the truth when he says we are not quoting from Catholic sources.

Go back and read the previous...now locked...thread ("The Holy Roman Catholic Church") on this very board and you will see us quoting from Catholic sources over and over and over again.

God bless,

Mike
</font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

What I posted is that you are basically taking small snippets out of context, and I think you got them from an anti-Catholic resource... If you got them from a Catholic source online, then please post links to your sources, so that we all can go and see for ourselves what the context of the snippet you used is in.

I have not once lied. How could I possibly know if you got them from a Catholic source or a non-Catholic source... As it is obvious that was my speculation. Speculation IS NOT a lie.

As I have asked you many times, correct my views with links to the Catechism and I'll change my view. When someone did post from the catechism,it was out of context... which I posted the part of the paragraph that shined light on the piece that was taken out of context.


I'm not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of the Catholic Church. I speak the truth in what the Catholic Church teaches, and why they claim that they teach it. As is proven by the Catechism, which anyone can look it up. If I am wrong, then I want to be corrected. Just saying that I'm wrong without showing a link is not correction. As I have stated before.

If someone spreads misunderstandings or outright lies about other religions, when we as Christians should delight in truth, how can we trust the quality of any of their research?


God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
 

D28guy

New Member
Sirach,

What I posted is that you are basically taking small snippets out of context, and I think you got them from an anti-Catholic resource... If you got them from a Catholic source online, then please post links to your sources, so that we all can go and see for ourselves what the context of the snippet you used is in.
If I remember correctly, my posts came from 2 sources....

1) The Council of Trent.

I didnt think you would need a link. They were all identified by the numbers given them by the Catholics when they issued them. I didnt think you would have any trouble finding the Council of Trent cursings. They are readilly available on-line. "Google" the phrase "Council of Trent" and multitudes of Catholic sources will come up.

2) The Catechism.

Again Sirach, by you own admission you already have a Catechism, since you say you have been studying it. I thought my quotes had the numerical adresses that the Catholics put in there. I know that Steavers did.

3) The Catholic Encyclopedea

I thought that I did post a link with those ones. If I didnt then it was an oversight, because I certainly meant to.

And I dont believe I have ever posted to you from any web-site that Catholics would consider an "anti-catholic" web-site. (We would call them "pro-truth" websites. They are usually run by born again people who love catholics enough to tell them the truth)

I have posted from those websites at times, with links, but not in any of my postings with you.

God bless,

Mike
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Sirach -

A few questions.

#1. Does the RCC allow Non-CAtholics into the Gospel's "New Covenant"?

#2. Does the RCC claim that outside of the RCC there is no salavation?

#3. WOULD people like Billy Graham be considered among the "heretics" of the dark ages by the RCC such that the "extermination" policy of Lateran IV would apply "to him"? Because "if so" then all non-Catholic Christian fall into that category.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bob- see LUMEN GENTIUM - arts 14 & 15 are particularly helpful.


#1. Definitely. Far more charitable to Baptists and other Christians about thier salvation than some Baptists are to Catholics, it would appear

#2. Yes and no. No, if you do not know that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, yes if you do. Let's face it, nearly all non-Catholic Christians do NOT know that the CC is necessary for salvation...er...otherwise they'd be Catholic

#3. Probably yes, unfortunately. However, there are many on this Board who think he's a heretic as well...

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

Living4Him

New Member
I'm not a Baptist btw, but could you post the thread, date, and time for the posts where any baptists, or non-baptist evangelicals like myself, have said that "they are the only Christian religion and that everyone else is on a one way ticket to hell".
OK not in so many words, it is more of an attitude. But there are post here that say "the RCC is a false religion", "there may be some Christians in the RCC", "Witnessing to 7th day adventist", ect.

Oh yes, let's not forget the post that ask why there aren't any Chick Tracts against the Pentecostals.

In the Sunday homilies, I have yet to hear Fr. Al say, "you need to witness to your protestant/baptist/non-catholic christian neighbors." However, I have heard him say,"you need to be the light of Christ to your neighbors and especially look for ways to bring Christ to the unchurched and those who do not know about Christ's redeeming love. Encourage your unchurched neighbors to attend Mass with you" etc.
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Bob,

First I want to thank you for not wanting to build straw men.


#1. Does the RCC allow Non-CAtholics into the Gospel's "New Covenant"?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who do not have a chance to learn of Christ's Gospel, have the law written on their hearts, and since all men will be judged by Christ, at that time it is possible that they can accept Christ. As scripture states:

Romans 2:12
All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, 6 while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.


#2. Does the RCC claim that outside of the RCC there is no salavation?
The Catholic Church teaches that if you reject the one's Christ sent, then there is no chance of Salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that the Church was sent by Christ to teach men the Gospel.

The Catholic Church does teach that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but it teaches this because Christ said:

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"


The Church also teaches that if you believe that you are in the correct Church started by Christ, that you are Catholic by desire and therefore within the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that Baptists who believe that they are in the Church established by Christ should stay Baptist and are in the Catholic Church by desire.

Here is the Catechism piece:
From: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"


846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336


847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337


848
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
#3. WOULD people like Billy Graham be considered among the "heretics" of the dark ages by the RCC such that the "extermination" policy of Lateran IV would apply "to him"? Because "if so" then all non-Catholic Christian fall into that category.
Actually, it wasn't the Church that had such a policy, it was the civil authorities of that time. There were some bad bishops that didn't follow what the Church taught.

You might want to get a book titled "Salvation at Stake", it's written by a Harvard professor of history, who happens to be a protestant. The kings of those days were bad, and killed anyone that did not believe as they did. The worst was the Spanish Inquisition, but there were Luthereans that also killed many Catholics and Anabaptists. People used religion as the reason to do their evil, it was not the teachings of either churches. The inquistions go on to this day and it's simply finding out who are 'spy's within' sort of say. For example, if a Baptist school thought there was a Muslim teaching Islam, but claiming he was Baptist, then the school would inquire questions of him (an inquisition) and fire him and he wouldn't be able to teach Baptists anymore. This is what the goal of the inquistions were, but in Spain it was a bad king and I believe a bad Bishop that lead to the horrors that happened. At the time, the current Pope back then wrote a letter basically stating to let the Jews be Jews, Muslims be Muslims... but the King of Spain wouldn't hear of it and killed many of them.

You can find the book I mentioned at Amazon, the link is on the other thread, maybe page 16, or 18 I think.


God Bless,
Sirach
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Bob- see LUMEN GENTIUM - arts 14 & 15 are particularly helpful.


#1. Definitely. Far more charitable to Baptists and other Christians about thier salvation than some Baptists are to Catholics, it would appear

#2. Yes and no. No, if you do not know that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, yes if you do. Let's face it, nearly all non-Catholic Christians do NOT know that the CC is necessary for salvation...er...otherwise they'd be Catholic

#3. Probably yes, unfortunately. However, there are many on this Board who think he's a heretic as well...

Yours in Christ

Matt
Dear Matt,

Those articles do not go into the reasoning behind the teaching, the Catechism does.

I do want to thank you for posting the link.

From the Catholic point of view, it makes sense because the Catholics believe that we would not know the Gospel if it wasn't for the Church teaching it, therefore it is necessary for the Church because we wouldn't even know Christ without it.

The Catholic Church also believes that the Apostles were the first Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Without the Apostles none of us would have the knowledge of Christ that we have. So from this point of view, I can understand why they believe and teach that.


God Bless,
Sirach
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sirach has a valid point: the Catholic Catechism is consistent with THEIR interpretation of THEIR scripture.

One could make a similar statement regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum.

Is it possible to be sincerely wrong? Follow Saul of Tarsus on his journey to Damascus. He thought he was doing God a service--killing Christians. He was shown the error of his way.

All of this religious confusion cannot be right. God is not the author of confusion. Satan is quite adept at confusion and deception.

Selah,

Bro. James
 
Top