-
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!
Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Brother, you have made two statements that I think you could make a bit clearer (at least for me, some here are a bit quicker on the intake than I). You mentioned in #50 that “Justification is rendered once upon the elect of God and is eternally determined.” And in this post that “Faith is evidence of conversion, a gift from God and not the cause of our justification whatsoever”.
Paul tells us that God justifies by faith (Rm. 3:30), and that we have been “justified by faith” (Rm. 5:1), that it is our faith that is “credited as righteousness” (Rm. 4:5), that we are “justified by faith in Christ” (Gal. 2:16).
I simply do not want to assume meaning to your words here. How do you define “conversion” and “justification”, and in what context does this explain what seems to be faith as the reason for our justification in the verses above?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Go ahead and tell me exactly what you are having a problem with in what I said bro and I will attempt to address it. Pretty caught up in another thread at the moment!
No rush at all, brother.
I agree and understand that faith is a gift, and I understand that the cause of our faith is God. But I simply am not sure what you mean about faith not being the “cause of our justification whatsoever” and how that statement reconciles with “we are justified by faith.”
Insofar as definitions go, how do you define justification (is it God declaring us just; is it positional; is it legal; is it speaking of our justness in regards of the Abrahamic Covenant; or is it speaking of a moral justness; etc.)? How do you define “conversion” (is it renewal; process; summery; event, etc.)?
If you can expound, I would appreciate it.
The verse I've seen offered most often is Ephesians 2:8. The problem with that is the “free gift” must refer to salvation and not faith because of the context of the entire passage. The passage (as a whole) does not allow the interpretation of "faith" as this free gift. So, IMHO, the correct interpretation is that we have been "saved by grace through faith" and this "salvation by grace through faith" is a free gift from God lest any should boast.
When I was in seminary, a guest lecturer was Bill Mounce (this was a graduate level Greek course). Anyway, working through the verse, the problem with emphasizing faith as the “free gift” is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. Case is determined by its function in a sentence, gender by its antecedent. It is impossible for this to be understood as referring back to faith as there is no antecedent. “This is not of yourselves” does not refer specifically to “faith” but to the entire salvific process (to which faith is a part). The problem is when we start pulling the words apart from the text and separating them to force support for our ideas. As a whole, I do believe faith is a part of this whole process that is a gift from God, but it can't be "proven" by this verse.
So, from a non-Calvinist who occasionally views Baptist flavored Calvinism as RCC theology twice removed, I also believe that faith is a gift from God (granted, all things are). Mine is more of a reasoning based on Ezekiel 36 (for one) and Jesus' reply to Peter's confession (that it was revealed by the Spirit and not of himself). If this is a work of God, and if grace is through faith, then faith can not be "of man" except it be a work of God through man (i.e., God working within our wills to change us). So I see faith as being a gift from God in that the entire process of salvation is not of ourselves, but of God (and faith is a part of salvation). But, that is my reasoning and not a specific passage.
Last edited:
I appreciate your input.
You are right about Eph.2:8.
The trouble with Ezekiel 36 is that it is an OT passage directed at the nation of Israel.
Peter's Confession is not applicable either.
My original statement was "There is no scripture that teaches that faith is a gift given to the unregenerate.
I don't classify Peter among the unregenerate. And I don't believe Ezekiel 36 can provide evidence. There are many posters here that don't believe regeneration can apply to any of the OT scriptures as it is a NT concept only.
Yes....it is my understanding based on Scripture, not Scripture itself. Part of my reasoning is that I disagree about Ezekiel 36 (I believe that these words were to true Israel, and that branches were cut off so that others would be grafted in. I also believe that God will continue to work with Israel as a nation, but not that there are two peoples of God), but I am sure there are other things that undermine an agreement here. Insofar as Peter goes, I do not know that I would call Peter "saved" at the time Jesus spoke those words.
I have also argued that regeneration cannot apply to the OT saints (based on Ezekiel 36), at least not as we see in the New Testament (the Spirit is never said to "indwell", was not "sent", the kingdom was not yet inaugurated, etc.). So not viewing OT saints as regenerate would prevent me from viewing Peter as regenerate as well (not until after the Cross). But that's not a hill I would die upon. (That said, I do not see it consistent to reject OT regeneration yet view Peter as regenerate, unless I am misunderstanding you here).
Not to bore you, but much of this faith depends on God's own revelation of himself. It is not so much God gifts us faith, but God reveals himself to us. (As an illustration, think of the reason God gave for hardening Pharaoh's heart, or of why Jesus concealed meaning in parables. The answer was the same). So, in a summary/nutshell....i.e., not much detail.... I believe that God reveals himself to us in a particular way so that in seeing we by faith believe.
Last edited:
That is a reasoned approach to take.
Concerning salvation Paul said:
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom.10:17).
Faith is confidence, confidence in the word of another. In this case it is confidence in the salvation message or the gospel. When a person hears and understands the gospel he is able to put his faith or trust in this message and be saved. Thus salvation is by faith.
I became Catholic after a long study of the Catholic faith and the Early Church and comparing it to scripture. The Catholic faith teaches that we all have sinned and need to repent and turn to Jesus Christ. Romans 3:23. It teaches that we all deserve to be punished for our sins now and forever, because by nature we are sinful (Psalm 51:5) and have done what God forbids and have not done what God commands (Exodus 20:17) The Catholic Church teaches that we all deserve death for our sins (Romans 6:23). The Church teaches that only by what our Lord and Savior has done for us through His suffering, death, and resurrection can we be saved for time and eternity from our sins, death and the power of Satan. It teaches that He did this for you and for me. Each and every one of us are saved if we have the right relationship with the Lord. I know that Jesus Christ reigns in my heart and I have been a Catholic (left the Baptist church) for years now. I have been a member of this board from before I became a Catholic and was told that by entering the Catholic Church that I would soon see that the Church and biblical Christianity are not the same. I have found the Catholic Church IS biblical Christianity and the Church Jesus founded on Peter.
The lady who you are referring to may very well have put her faith and trust in our Lord Jesus. However, there are a lot of cultural Catholics out there that I hope you do witness to. There are also plenty of cultural Protestants out there that you could witness to as well.
Last edited:
I always found it curious the legitimate testimony people give when they leave the Baptist faith for the Catholic and the Catholic for the Baptist. I also have friends who became Catholic and who became Baptist. Experience is a poor gauge of Truth. It would have been interesting to witness a debate between you, Walter, and one of my dear friends who was very active in the RCC until his conversion as a Baptist.
Hi Walter,
Haven't heard from you for awhile.
Surely you know by now, that the RCC contradicts scripture at every point, takes away the Bible from the people, and denies some of the most essential doctrines of the Bible:
- Sola Fide, by faith alone.
- Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
- Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
- Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
- Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.
Using the ECF is using failure. From them stem almost all of the heresies of the early church.
Using testimony and experience is not a good rule of thumb either. The Bible is our only standard of faith and rule.
So where does that leave us?
Thus saith the Lord!
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
If a person has the right relationship with Jesus Christ, they are saved regardless of whether they are Catholic or Protestant. I am a Catholic I would like for you to point out how that means I have not repented of my sins and put my faith and trust in Jesus and His precious shed blood at Calvary for my salvation. Do you know what Romans 10:9 tells us?
I would like you to tell me this:
A right relationship comes through the new birth. Jesus said: "You must be born again." It is not simply just calling on the Lord. It is via the new birth.
The RCC teaches very plainly that the new birth = baptism, as I have quoted on this thread from the RCC Catechism.
That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the new birth is accomplished through the Spirit of God and the Word of God, never through baptism.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--Water in this verse is symbolic of cleansing; cleansing by the Word. We are born again by the Word and the Spirit of God. Baptism plays no part in the new birth. Once you solve that then you can solve whether or not you have a relationship with Christ. Both views cannot be correct.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
...the Catholic Mass. 'Jesus Christ gave us the sacrifice of the Mass to leave to His Church a visible sacrifice which continues His sacrifice on the cross until the end of time. The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. Holy Communion is the receiving of the body and blood of Jesus under the appearance of wine' - The New York Catechism.
If the above is not blasphemous enough consider this as well:
The priest office, which is nowhere found in Scripture, nor in the beginnings of the NT church anywhere, continues this aberrant office, makes sacrifice continually for the people, where there is no priestly work to be done at all, as Christ Himself satisfied this forever by one offering; Hebrews 10:10ff. The beliefs and practices of the RCC/CC are a blasphemous discredit to the one time perfect offering of the Christ of God.
If the above is not blasphemous enough consider this as well:
The priest office, which is nowhere found in Scripture, nor in the beginnings of the NT church anywhere, continues this aberrant office, makes sacrifice continually for the people, where there is no priestly work to be done at all, as Christ Himself satisfied this forever by one offering; Hebrews 10:10ff. The beliefs and practices of the RCC/CC are a blasphemous discredit to the one time perfect offering of the Christ of God.
You personally may have been born again, but the Roman Catholic Cult deters from the True Gospel and Teachings of Scripture. They believe that their sacraments PLUS what Jesus Did pays for their sin...and as if that wasn't enough, you could be refined a wee bit more by sitting in purgatory until all your cooties were paid for. Total and absolute blasphemy. The RCC is a superstitious concoction of the devil himself.
To top it all off, you have made a graven image of my Lord with the crucifixion. He is risen and seated at the Right hand of God the Father! Death couldn't hold Him! His work on the Cross IS Finished! The RC Cult wants to continually crucify my Lord every time they have mass...and you say you "trust" your sins are paid for?! Sounds to me you are not confident at all. My Jesus paid it all for this wretched sinner and all wretched sinners ONCE. I don't know what Jesus you are talking about, but it's not the Jesus of MY Bible.
Hi DHK, you and I have always had respectful discussions regarding the CC and it's teachings. I have not commented on this board for a while but members making statements such as: 'Catholics cannot be Christians, you need to witness to them even if your pastor won't confront them'.Then the erroneous assertions like: 'Catholics try to re-crucify Jesus at every mass'. And on and on. Thought I would chime in but I certainly not interested in taking on the whole board. Wish you guys still allowed Catholic Christians (other than the one of us that have converted from the Baptist church) to participate.
The fact is, DHK, whether some of the Early Church Fathers were guilty of some doctrinal errors or not, they agreed on much more than they disagreed. One thing they ALL agreed on (and so did the rest of Christianity) was that John 3:5 referred to water baptism. Some of these were taught at the Apostles feet. Let's just see what they ALL agreed on about the baptism:
Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).
The Recognitions of Clement
"But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).
Council of Carthage VII
"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).
John Chrysostom
"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
And, there are many other writings in support of Baptismal Regeneration. What I haven't found were ANY writings in the Early Church that support your 'baptism is only a symbol' viewpoint. Nobody believed tha way you do or there would be writings to support it. Also, if there were people who believed the way you do, where are the writings of the controversy concerning it??? There are none because there were none. There are certainly writings about heresies that cropped up at that time.
You simply find some doctrinal errors among some of the Early Church writers and dismiss all there writings. Why? because their writings sharply disagree with you and your beliefs.
What you usuallly do is sit back and say: "I don't care what those people believed in the Early Church, they were ALL heretics and then state that you prefer to believe your interpretation of scripture over what people like Ignatius of Antioch (who was taught by St. John) or Justin Martyr, etc. Baptists like yourself often 'hitch your wagons' to groups of dissidents along the way which believed NOTHING like you do today and can clearly be shown to have heretical beliefs that you simply turn a blind eye to.
Now, you declare Catholics 'not Christians' because they believe differently than you do about what constitutes the 'new birth'. BTW, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Orthodox, etc, etc, also believe in baptismal regeneration. What we also believe is that water baptism absent from repentence and trusting in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross for our salvation will NOT save you. You will say baptism is a work and thus the Catholic Church is teaching salvation by works. We say no, God does the regeneration but also requires faith (Eph. 2:8-9) You see, first of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.
Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.
Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; (nobody believed the way you do before Luther) the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.
I wonder how many of you have Nativity scenes set up at your churches right now or even your homes?? Seems like so called 'grave images' gets a pass by many of you this time a year.
BTW, please see the below post which explains why you are wrong about the Catholic Church wanting 'to continually crucify my Lord every time they have mass.' Also, you might want to tone down the vitriol a wee bit. Doesn't help your case much and, unless it has changed, questioning my salvation is not allowed on this board.
Last edited:
No, we do not try to re-crucify Jesus Christ at each mass. It is a re-presenting of Calvary to the Father. It was pre-figured in the Old Testament. In Anglican Rite Catholic Churches the canon of the mass reads: 'All glory to you, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that you, of your tender mercy, did give your only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and did institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that His precious death and sacrifice, until His coming again.'
I don't normally posts links but this is one that does a much better job of explaining how the mass is not 're-sacrificing Jesus over and over again'.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Walter it's not that I am ignorant to the fact that those within the RCC/CC will try to put a positive spin on any of her heterodox (at the least) doctrines. All sects do this, it is nothing new, nor is it remarkable that her subjects are gulled into these errors by her baseless apologetic to defend herself.
The RCC does this to every single sacrilegious doctrine she holds to, all the polytheism, the sacerdotalism (which you are trying to defend and deny) the Mariolatry, the defense that she is falsely exalted to Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, and the shown contempt for the eternal one time sacrifice of Christ are all defended. Every single one.
Mary as co anything with the office of Christ is a grave heresy and deceptive lie propagated by the RCC. It is blasphemous to the finished work of Christ and to His office as priest. The RCC has many such like doctrines that truncate the true Gospel and true Christ of God and she fights to defend this degradation.
In addition to all this there is plenty more official teachings that show the intent of the so called Catholic Mass that reinforces what I've provided. Any truly converted person with any gumption would either preach against this heresy, get out of her, or both. Instead these who proclaim self to be of the truth who remain within this sacrilegious sect defend the heresies. It's nothing new.
The RCC does this to every single sacrilegious doctrine she holds to, all the polytheism, the sacerdotalism (which you are trying to defend and deny) the Mariolatry, the defense that she is falsely exalted to Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, and the shown contempt for the eternal one time sacrifice of Christ are all defended. Every single one.
Mary as co anything with the office of Christ is a grave heresy and deceptive lie propagated by the RCC. It is blasphemous to the finished work of Christ and to His office as priest. The RCC has many such like doctrines that truncate the true Gospel and true Christ of God and she fights to defend this degradation.
In addition to all this there is plenty more official teachings that show the intent of the so called Catholic Mass that reinforces what I've provided. Any truly converted person with any gumption would either preach against this heresy, get out of her, or both. Instead these who proclaim self to be of the truth who remain within this sacrilegious sect defend the heresies. It's nothing new.
- Status